Fallenangel

Thanks KimT for indexing! I'm glad I was able to contribute to the wonderful Eurobricks Review Index!!!

Would anyone like to tell me why this is on the front page when my review's been sitting in the forum for weeks? And incorrect, Mr Hobbles; the Executor is eleven times the length of one Imperator-class Star Destroyer; in fact, for reference, the bridge tower on the Executor was made the same size as that on an Imperator-class. theforce.net covers this in great detail. And I'm pretty sure I mentioned the size of a LEGO Executor in comparison to this set in my review.

Acclamators shouldn't have Open Circle fleet markings... Sorry but accurate as it is, it's got large gaps everywhere. I would recommend you fix this before adding any additional detail. And you might want to check the shape. And maybe the section around the tower should be raised more conspicuously? However, I think you captured the bridge, the boosters, and the lump in the back perfectly. The overall shape of the ship is spot on.

I added new pictures, as I promised. I also added new content in addition to what was already there; I guess you could call this my "8099 Midi-scale Star Destroyer REVIEW: Special Edition". Please read this review again!!!

Bah, retcons. 2x3 large baseplates? So it's 128x192 studs that's huge! (102.4cm x 153.6cm!!!) I'm really not sure about how accurate this diorama actually is (for one, no walls separating fighters in the actual hangar) but the attention to small details and the floor tiling makes this absolutely amazing.

Understood ThatGuyWithTheBricks; I know from building LEGO myself that gaps and angles can be extremely hard to achieve, especially when the angles don't exist in LEGO. I meant those LARGE gaps where the blue wing plates meet with the 2x6 curved brick that forms the main slope, and also where the sides of the ship angle down. (Something similar also happened in some official TIE sets; I suggest taking a look at guybrush's TIE Interceptor to fix it.

My favorite part of this would have to be the way that you achieved the starburst pattern and the yellow arrow on the hull, very nice. Proportions look spot-on. I'm not sure how accurate that cockpit detail is (it appears to be the same printed tile used in LEGO's rendition), but it looks graet. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick this a bit: The first thing I noticed is the slope of the sides of the ship; it's just too steep. I know from rewatching Clones and several Clone Wars episodes that while there is an incline to the sides, it's not very steep; many MOCers have even disregarded the slope altogether (guybrush's UCS comes to mind) and managed to create a pretty accurate rendition. I would suggest you either reduce the incline or take it out completely (after all, the Wookieepedia reference picture appears to depict the Delta-7 without inclined wings). I would probably use a technique for inclining the wings similar to LEGO's own technique seen in the 7143 Jedi Starfighter, but set the entire system within the central area so as to avoid awkward obtrusions on the underside of the wings. And the latter would be a simple stacked-plates build, wouldn't it? Of course, with this picture I'm not too sure. The second detail is the guns. The look of the guns themselves are captured quite well (and actually to scale, for that matter) but they're not set into the ship at all; they just kind of sit on top of it. Stock photos of the Delta-7 and shots from Clones show a deep, narrow groove in which the guns are set, and a gap in the outline of the ship resulting from the groove. I don't see any sign of this on your MOC; the guns are obviously mounted well above the level of the hull. I'm not sure if it could be done considering the construction at that area, so I would suggest removing the large wing plate at that part and putting something else there. You might also want to fill in the gaps in front of the cockpit, though I think that would be easier if you just switched to sculpture build. I'm assuming the cockpit doesn't actually open? My favorite part of this would have to be the way that you achieved the starburst pattern and the yellow arrow on the hull, very nice. Proportions look spot-on. I'm not sure how accurate that cockpit detail is (it appears to be the same printed tile used in LEGO's rendition), but it looks graet. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick this a bit: The first thing I noticed is the slope of the sides of the ship; it's just too steep. I know from rewatching Clones and several Clone Wars episodes that while there is an incline to the sides, it's not very steep; many MOCers have even disregarded the slope altogether (guybrush's UCS comes to mind) and managed to create a pretty accurate rendition. Of course, with this picture I'm not too sure if I'm right about this. I would, however, suggest you either reduce the incline or take it out completely (after all, the Wookieepedia reference picture appears to depict the Delta-7 without inclined wings). I would probably use a technique for inclining the wings similar to LEGO's own technique seen in the 7143 Jedi Starfighter, but set the entire system within the central area so as to avoid awkward obtrusions on the underside of the wings. And the latter would be a simple stacked-plates build, wouldn't it? The second detail is the guns. The look of the guns themselves are captured quite well (and actually to scale, for that matter) but they're not set into the ship at all; they just kind of sit on top of it. Stock photos of the Delta-7 and shots from Clones show a deep, narrow groove in which the guns are set, and a gap in the outline of the ship resulting from the groove. I don't see any sign of this on your MOC; the guns are obviously mounted well above the level of the hull. I'm not sure if it could be done considering the construction at that area, so I would suggest removing the large wing plate at that part and putting something else there. You might also want to fill in the gaps in front of the cockpit, though I think that would be easier if you just switched to sculpture build. I'm assuming the cockpit doesn't actually open?

Sorry about that. Back on track, here are a few observations I've made on the new sets: It looks like the Bounty Hunter Ship is able to rotate what I assume are its boosters. Sorry, but I think the Imperial V-wing looks crappier than ever. The nose looks even thinner than on the previous rendition, the guns appear to have been shortened (although it looks like there is a third pair - correct me if I'm wrong), and there's a STICKER on the slope piece. The panels on the rear of the ship look really weird at that angle, and it appears they're attached by the sides again. The wings look to be the same thing and look like they're attached to bars. Bad show LEGO bad show. I'm glad I picked up the 2006 version when it was still around (insignificant to Sith as it is) since it looks a lot better than this one. Is that Coruscant in the background? If that is a BARC speeder in the new battlepack it's got to be the largest and fattest one I've ever seen. It makes it worse that a decent-sized BARC speeder would really have gone well with a clone battlepack... It doesn't look like the '07 short guns will be discontinued since the droids seem to use a pair. They ought to give us the ol' megaphone once in a while so we can have some variety in the ranks. I wonder if a 'Mandalorian' in Jango's colors means we'll be getting yet another Slave I soon? Or better yet, a Geonosis arena-themed set with another load of new Jedi? (Agen Kolar and Ki Adi-Mundi! Yeah! And new droidekas! Yeah!)

Yeah, and while they're at it they should make another B-wing fighter using that piece. With 3 Slave Is, 3 A-wings and like 6 snowspeeders, a third B-wing doesn't seem all that impossible. There have been many instances, especially in more recent sets, where LEGO has used, as one member of another LEGO forum described it, redundant use of pieces. Yeah, but you have to remember most of that was ripped off of dmac's MOC, the same way the UCS Falcon was ripped off of Pepa Quin's and the UCS Delta-7 from cavegod's. I'm guessing that if LEGO hadn't seen dmac's shuttle, they probably wouldn't have used a SNOT technique in certain places. (Heck, they might not have even released a UCS shuttle in the first place.) Oh by the way, I remembered what I was going to say: the ARC-170 made its first appearance in the Star Wars: Obsession series, which takes place in 20 BBY. Its only appearance before that time is in a Battle of Malastare in 22 BBY (the previously cited first appearance of the ARC-170). This Battle of Malastare only takes place in the new Clone Wars series that started last year; the cited date of 22 BBY can therefore be considered a RETCON. Let's not promote doublethink in the Eurobricks community, shall we? And no, I don't believe in TIE/Ins and A-wings being around during the first movie either, nor do I believe Anakin actually built C-3PO on his own.

Is that so? Because Wookieepedia also cites the first appearance of the ARC-170 in the Star Wars: Obsession series, which takes place in 20 BBY. And I'm sure that the Eta-2 Actis appears in the first issue of this series (piloted by Obi-Wan). The Eta-2 should therefore have been around the same time as the ARC-170s. Since the Obsession series ran in 2004, and the Clone Wars comics which you cited having been released a few months ago, your information could be considered a retcon. EDIT: Never mind, my post doesn't make sense at all.

If anything, the older 7140 X-wing is less accurate to minifigure size than the newer version. But I think there are certain details on the older version (shape and printing on the nose, grey color, etc.) which I prefer to the newer one. Plus, a smaller X-wing allows for a smaller diorama, which is always good for those in shortage of parts. The bridgelike structure over the X-wing and the tile floor looks amazing. I love that after all those Menace-based dioramas you're showing one from the original Trilogy. I can't wait to see the finished product ACPin!

I've seen Sith at least 5 times. In the scene where Obi-wan is talking to Cody in the Venator you can see the tip of a V-wing fighter on the right. Show me a scene with "ARFs" in it; the closest thing I can think of are the Kashyyyk troopers or the clones on the BARC speeders during Order 66. Where are these "ARFs"? More battle droids make the Naboo set, but I don't see them. Could someone point them out? (By the way, I think the color of the new carrier looks about the same as that of the engine area seen on the 2006 Slave I.) Just curious... in the older Clone Wars, the Eta-2 Actis interceptors made their debut around the same time as the ARC-170s. Apparently there have been ARC-170s in the new series, so where are the Eta-2s? We haven't had a new one since '07, and even then Obi-wan's blue one wasn't nearly as applicable as Anakin's yellow one. Is there anyone here who thinks LEGO might release an Eta-2 anytime this year? Even though I'm hoping for a primarily OT-based line in the fall, I've been expecting new Eta-2s for a while. The same could be said for droidekas.

I'm sorry KielDaMan for criticizing the sets without actually not knowing anything about the starships they're based on. It's just that as Rufus pointed out these sets all seem obscure (not unlike 'Cad Bane's speeder this year but at least Cad Bane was in more than one episode) and the only thing I can really recognize in the Clone Wars based sets are Saesee Tiin and Shaak Ti, and even then we only see them briefly. The number of new molds is almost disturbing and I can only think of how much the price will go up. The thing is, as much as the Mandalorians have appeared in the new Clone Wars series (they seem quite popular) I don't like the concept of like 1000 people with Boba Fett's armor organized in a near-fascist state. It just doesn't seem like Star Wars. And I also don't like the fact that LEGO would make a nice big model of a ship that has only appeared in like one episode as well as nice expensive new molds for the characters. (I speak here of the "Bounty Hunter Ship".) I don't think either the ship nor characters have reached (or will ever reach, for that matter) the comic book and video game awesomeness that has led LEGO to release a third Slave I (another bounty hunter ship) with a new Boba Fett mold. In other words, LEGO is unnecessarily making things too expensive. To be honest, I've changed my mind about the T-6 shuttle (the Star Wars galaxy needs to advance, after all). I hadn't realized that Quinlan Vos has had as much an extensive pre-Sith comic book history as Shaak or Saesee (or the fact that he was actually in a Star Wars movie) - I apologize. And the shuttle's design looks fairly accurate and thought out. The amount of clone variations they've managed to release in a year is ridiculous. The fact that they have ARFs when they already have the awesome ARCs is kind of pointless isn't it? Contrary to others, I don't like this year's battlepacks too much - the Mandalorian mold shortens the number of minifigures that can be include in one battlepack and the inclusion of the newer green-painted clones as opposed to the older red and blue "clone trooper commandos" leads me away from the other one. We can only hope that LEGO will truly wow fans of the older stuff in the fall with the UCS and exclusives.

OMG what is that ugly 'Sugii' thing? Aurra Sing makes sense I guess but a new mold of a weird teddy bear thing is ridiculous, why? And what's with the shoulder pads on 'Embo'? Not even the Darth Vader minifigure has shoulder pads. I can't help thinking LEGO is beginning to go a little overboard on new minifigure molds nowadays, even though we did get some long-desired figures (Wampa, Tauntaun, Bossk, etc.) Are all these new molds really that highly desired as to cause massive price boosts? Mandalorian battlepack? I don't see the purpose in that. Were there Mandalorians in a recent Clone Wars episode or something? V-wing reminds me of 7663, ugly. Black astromech is neat (it was seen on the Death Star, after all), but what's with that Imperial pilot? I've never seen anything like it. Hopefully we'll get the TIE pilot from the Defender in the final. And besides, I thought the astro droid was programmed into the fighter like with the Delta-7? Droid carrier looks all right, but it doesn't seem to carry any more droids than the previous rendition, which is a bit of a letdown. Printed Gungans: expected. "Jedi Shuttle"? I thought they already had Consulars, Delta-7s, and LAAT/is? Who the heck is "Quinian Vos"? I don't know what LEGO is thinking expecting children to be happy with expensive new molds of who appear to be more or less throwaway characters. And do Jedi really need yet another transport? Luke traversed across the galaxy in just his X-wing, Han in just the Falcon, and even Obi-wan traveled all the way to Kamino in just his Delta-7. Plus you can totally tell the T-6 is a ripoff of Asajj's Geonosis fanblade starfighter in the '03 series, and the 'Bounty Hunter ship' of Jaster's Legacy. (But then again, that legacy, too, was ruined...)

Yes KimT you're right. In an attempt to get this review added to the index, I'm taking better pictures and plan to write a review that uses some more refrence pictures. I intend to have it up by Saturday, though nothing's certain... until then please keep this on notice.

You realize, Aeroeza, the reason I brought up the UCS X-wing in the first place is to show that the mechanism wasn't accurate and therefore constitutes a play feature. You claim that the mechanism in the X-wing used to open the wings is accurate within the limits of the medium. However, rewatching the Death Star sequence shows this is clearly not the case. In addition to the incorrect method of attaching the wings which I had previously mentioned, I will add that the studio model of the X-wing used in the Death star sequence (all of them, not just the "hero" X-wings) have a large gap between the wings due to the cavity in the rear fuselage necessary for the pivoting function of the wings to work. Since LEGO's UCS X-wing does not utilize this pivoting system, it appears that they did not see any need to include the gap, despite the fact that it was a real feature on the actual model. The LEGO X-wing's wing-opening mechanism is therefore not only overly complex but also detracts from accuracy, ultimately being a play feature. Indeed, a feature of the real model is dropped (the gap between the wings, as well as the pivot in the fuselage) to accomodate a particular function (the gear system that opens the wings).If you are as uncompromising as you say I can't help but think you would take such matters into consideration before praising that aspect of the UCS X-wing. And I do not think that the pivoting function of the studio model cannot be replicated in LEGO; Dave's LEGO X-wing proves otherwise. In this case then there are no limitations in the medium that interferes with this aspect of the X-wing, except maybe the weight of the wings (but of course that, too, can be easily addressed).

For those who are interested, somebody on Brickshelf took better pictures of the build. I can't help thinking I've seen the username Mathis somewhere, but oh well. (Still not polled I see... oh well, it's not like this review is going to be indexed...)

Perhaps this screenshot from the film could help?

Zzz is right; the various moving parts of a model are just as important as its details, especially if the craft it is based on sports actual moving parts. This is the reason for the opening canopy on the UCS Snowspeeder and X-wing. Since moving parts are a real trait of the ship upon which the model is based, of course those same moving parts would be featured on the model itself. However, that does not take the trends of the LEGO UCS line into account. With the exception of the UCS N-1 fighter, every UCS set of a small fighter or vehicle has featured an opening cockpit; for this one not to would be a failure on LEGO's part. But LEGO UCS sets have not featured landing gear, even if it was a trait of the actual ship - I speak of the UCS X-wing and Y-wing. For this reason, the lack of landing gear on this is somewhat acceptable. The best, of course, would be to offer both display options, as many model kits do, but LEGO can't please everybody can they? (Not to mention the fact that a UCS AT-AT and Executor - sets I know several AFOLs have been wishing for - would have made a whole lot of sense for 2010 but instead we get a Lambda shuttle and this thing.) Not that I'm challenging you or anything, but Aeroeza I believe you are mistaken in saying that "a UCS, as a rule of thumb, doesn't tend to have complex play features which take away from the accuracy of the model". Have you looked at the wing-opening function for the UCS X-wing? It's an absolute mess of gears and technic beams. Some X-wing nuts like myself (see avatar and Brickshelf folder) are aware that the wings on the studio model were connected via a central axle in the rear fuselage of the fighter; the wings would simply pivot in opposite directions around this axle to achieve their trademark "X" shape. While I suspect that LEGO rejected this method due to the enormous weight of the wings, I maintain that this gritty mechanism could be considered a "complex play feature". And as to your comment on a UCS sacrificing accuracy and detail for play features, did you know that the new UCS Lambda shuttle basically omitted a ramp so that the head area could be flipped up to access minifigures - an obvious play feature if I've ever seen one.

Thanks everyone for your comments!! Unfortunately, I'm not very good with a camera, and the pictures I have up are the best I can do at this point. This review probably won't be indexed because of the pictures (even though I was the first one, darn it). On the other hand, building instructions are available on the LEGO website, so I would suggest a look through that for anyone curious about the build. For those complaining about the price, fred is right - after all, the set contains 28 dark bley 1x1 round plates and 24 1x1 plates with a clip. But keep in mind that this is (as far as I know) the only set in the fall 2010 line that is below the $0.10/piece ratio, and besides it's more like a UCS set than your average LEGO set. It's also likely that WalMart will start selling these at discount after a few months. By the way, I figured out the 'scale' of this set. (Unlike the Falcon, a Star Destroyer has a standard length of one mile.) The set is 9.6 in. (24.5 cm) long; it's about 1/6600 scale, in case anyone wants to construct an Imperial fleet scaled to this set. (A scaled Executor would be 105.6 in or about 2.7 m long, a Tantive IV about 2.29 cm, based on the listed length of the Tantive IV as 150m.) By the way, could one of the site administrators maybe add a poll to this review?

Having recently rediscovered MLCAD, I decided to replicate a classic set, the 7134 A-wing, not only because it was one of the smaller LEGO Star Wars sets of that time, but because I'm quite fond of the set, despite never having owned it. Click here - the pics are .bmp files, so I can't deeplink them. However, considering the ease with which you can change part colors on MLCAD (a feat not easily accomplished with real bricks) I decided to fool around with the rendering a bit. The first thing I did was "repaint" the set. One thing about the set you can nitpick is the fact that the colors are really off; I decided to correct the color scheme a bit, and this was what resulted: It definitely looks more accurate than the original. Looking closely, you can also see that I fixed the inside of the cockpit to be completely dark gray rather than the colorful bash LEGO likes to make their starfighter cockpits with. Having done this, I was about to move on when I recalled the blue diecast A-wing released by Hasbro a few years back, as well as Jerrec's fantastic blue A-wing custom. I "repainted" the set again, and came up with this: Yeah, it's blue. I think I should've made the 2x4 slopes in front blue as well, but I already took screenshots. Note that alterations to this set are purely cosmetic; I did not change the actual build or the shape of the pieces used in any way. So naturally there were a few restrictions. I'm planning to "repaint" the 7141 Naboo fighter to represent the blue variant shown in the Phantom Menace video game next, if anyone's interested. And I'm not sure whether this belongs here or not, but I've been wanting to do a review of my 7658 Y-wing for a while (as well as some older sets); what's been stopping me is the fact that there are already reviews of the sets and nobody might care. So should I or not...?

I didn't make the newer A-wings because I think that the original 7134 is closer in shape to the actual model in comparision to newer 2006 or the 2009 versions. (The discontinued 4x8 wings are closer to the real angle of the ship than the 3x12 wings IMO.) And on top of that, I think the newer versions have more pieces, so it would have taken more time. (The newest version has a few pieces at an angle behind the canopy; angled pieces are difficult on MLCAD for me.) And of course, the original LEGO A-wing has that "classic" feel to it. However, if it will induce more comments, I will make a rendering of the newest A-wing in blue and red as well.

"Uncle Owen!" "Yeah?" "This 'Artoo' unit's got a bad motivator, look!" Nice chrome 3PO and clever job on the treads.

I apologize gambort. Here's a way to achieve grooves in the wings: I think the groove could be achieved if instead of the 33 slope you're using you put this or this used with a plate/tile, or maybe even something like this in its place.

I'm hoping nobody will flame me for this, but I think this is missing something. The details are there, but it lacks some characteristic traits of a Delta-7B. Refer to the reference picture below as you read: Click this. For some reason I can't deeplink it. One defining trait of the Delta-7B - as well as one reason I don't like this ship too much - is the large "blade" in the front of the ship that is more pronouced than in the Delta-7 due to the "wings" on either side being a bit smaller and more offset. It would be better if you could achieve this in your MOC. Which leads me to the guns; they are about the right size on your ship but they should be shorter, as the guns on the actual ship are like small canisters. In addition to that, the deep grooves directly in front of the cannons (deeper than on the Delta-7) are next to nonexistent on your MOC. Another thing that's lacking is the dark square-like structures on the rear of the Delta-7B, carried over from the Delta-7. I see neither the mentioned structures nor the yellow arrows in front of them. I will say, however, that I like the style in which this is built - perhaps more detail could be included if the ship itself were to be built in a larger scale (around 1/30)? I know from experience that construction is slightly restrictive at that size.