Kdapt-Preacher

They're the same torso and legs as all four of the figures listed here. For anybody else Bricklinking the body, you don't have to get another Resistance Bomber Pilot; the same body was used for the pilot in the Ski Speeder microfighter, which can be had for under $4.

I thought we'd all agreed that MandRProductions was talking out of his megablocks for Youtube clicks and nothing he said was meaningful...

Glad it worked out for you! I agree that it's not ideal, but I also suspect that they're telling the truth when they tell some folks they don't have any parts to ship them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the number of requests has greatly outmatched the number of Finches that were allocated to their support system, at least in some regions. Sure, it isn't fair, but I think LEGO has been pretty reasonable overall with the customer service aspect. Changing the figure without announcing it was a dick move to begin with, but everything since then has been fine--everybody who got a figure from LEGO got it purely out of the kindness of their hearts, after all. Granted, I say that as someone who got a figure. If I hadn't I might be more annoyed with them....

I agree on weird, but not necessarily that it doesn't look like an actual set. It's a little display piece rather than a playset, unless it has some kind of motion feature that isn't clear from the picture. Very small for $20, but I like it; it would go well on a desk.

I requested the head and helmet about two weeks ago and received them today. I just reported them as missing via the form on LEGO.com; it listed them as out of stock and said that they'd contact me to say when they could be shipped, but they shipped them the next day without ever asking me anything else.

That might depend how you define it... the Resistance Bomber set the figure comes in was released in 2017. Pictures of the new figure first came out in the middle of 2018, and it was widely reported to be from a 2019 set, since at the time it wasn't known what set it would be in; that's why it's here. It wasn't until January that we learned that it had been added to an older set.

It's worse than that, actually--it didn't become public knowledge that the figure had been changed until after the set had already been discontinued. Somebody reported last month that they were still on shelves at Toys'R'Us in Canada, but I checked every LEGO store in a major US city and was told that they hadn't had any on shelves for weeks. Sets are available online, but you don't have any way to know whether you'll get the new or the old version; I bought a new set from the only online store that had pictures of the new pilot but received the old version. LEGO customer service was giving some people figures (mine supposedly shipped a week ago--fingers crossed...), but they seem to be cracking down on that now that people have started abusing it. So unless you take a road trip to somewhere and find some still on shelves, there's no way to get a figure other than paying more than what the set itself costs on EBay. You can get the part numbers by looking at the set on Bricks and Pieces (or looking for where somebody posted them a couple pages back in this thread). That will at least let you unambiguously specify what you want. Good luck.

Everything about the UCS except the number of parts is completely unsubstantiated speculation.

That's going to depend on how you define it, I guess. 10198 didn't have the UCS seal on the box, but neither did the Super Star Destroyer, the Jedi Starfighter, or a couple of others. It doesn't have a plaque, but neither do 75059 Sandcrawler or the minifig-including Death Stars, which do have the UCS seal. 10198 has the 10--- set number, was included alongside the Jedi Starfighter and Imperial Shuttle on the back of the SSD's box, and is listed as a UCS set on Brickipedia. If you want to exclude it from the list, you have to remove a bunch of others that are pretty unanimously agreed to be UCS sets.

Of all the UCS sets ever made, only a handful have had one minifigure. Ones before 2007 mostly had zero, and a couple of recent ones (the B-Wing and TIE Fighter, R2-D2, BB-8, and Porg) had one; all the others have had two or more, including the previous Tantive IV, which had five. Sandcrawlers, Slave 1, Super Star Destroyer, Imperial Shuttle, Republic Dropship, Millennium Falcons....

This is correct, but Bail did appear on the Tantive IV in a couple of episodes of TCW (Supply Lines and A Friend In Need).

You could've said that in 2010 too, though...

I'm not even sure how much of a consideration that is for them, honestly. They made a new helmet for the airborne troopers in 75036 Utapau Troopers and have shown no signs of ever intending to reuse it. Maybe they've just blown through their new helmet budget for the quarter. There usually are retailer exclusives, though. 75191 Jedi Starfighter and Hyperspace Ring was released alongside the TLJ sets. It isn't like there won't be more stuff, especially since The Mandalorian is also launching this year and will probably have merchandising associated with it (although they might follow the pattern from Resistance, too; I don't think anyone ever explained what was up with waiting to release those sets).

IMO, the only problem with the figures in the AT-RT is that it's another clone scout instead of an AT-RT driver. Standard B1s aren't particularly exciting figures, I guess, but if any figure should be super common, it's them; they only get better the more you have. Specialist CIS figures are nice occasionally, but B1s should always be the bread and butter, and it isn't like with the clones where there are dozens of variants that have never appeared. Off the top of my head, I can think of the firefighter droids from the Malevolence arc of TCW, but other than that I think LEGO might have covered every single CIS unit that would be small enough to be called a minifig. Plus, for what it's worth, that Wookiee warrior is a new print; the markings on the fur aren't the same as the Rebels version.

The new Slave I looks to be pretty much exactly the same size as the previous one; they're both about 40 studs long. So how did they manage to go from 573 pieces to 1007? It looks more detailed, sure, but not twice as detailed. Maybe the entire underside is coated with alternating 1x1 studs or something...

I don't quite get why people are so anxious for a new Han in carbonite piece. The problem is that the current one still shows the old-style hair, right? But Han's hair was pressed down against his head and looks more like the old piece than the new poofy one. I'd prioritize new molds of just about anything else (TIE pilots without exposed necks, or P1 clone pilots without helmet fins, or the AT-RT driver everybody here also wants) before replacing the carbonite.

I agree with this point, but also keep in mind that a big part of the problem with that is that LEGO's Juggernauts are tiny; IIRC they're about 1:5 scale relative to a minifigure.

No. There haven't been any rumors of any of those and these are the only anniversary sets.

No, they aren't the same thing. System-scale means 'normal', for lack of a better term; the vehicles and such will be sized appropriately that minifigures can interact with them (see the 'normal' Millennium Falcons, like the recent Kessel Run one, as opposed to the mini ones that are too small for minifigs to sit in the cockpit). 'Minifig scale' means that the vehicle is the size of the actual vehicle in Star Wars relative to an idealized minifigure, assuming a minifig represents a person ~6 feet tall, and is usually about 1:40. For small vehicles, like X-wings and speeders, system-scale and minifig-scale might be pretty close, but for larger vehicles (like the Falcon) minifig scale is a lot bigger--the UCS Falcon is minifig scale. For some really small vehicles, like the original Republic Fighter Tank and some of the Jedi starfighters, system-scale is larger than minifig-scale. We don't know for sure what the Slave I is going to be, but the recent USC version was minifig-scale (more or less), and this one's smaller than that, so it will probably be system-scale.

If that 120 euros translates to $140, the price per piece for the new one will be better than the 2010 version. Which isn't great, but as these things go, I don't think we're getting fleeced there. The Action Battle of Endor, on the other hand....

I think Tidy was just talking about nobody else having commented on the price of the set yet, but at 1000 pieces there pretty much has to be something more to it; that's almost twice the size of the last system-scale Slave I. The number of pieces per model has increased over the last few years, but not to nearly that degree.

Are you sure? This is a really nice clip of the bomber battle, for reference. I can't find him. There's a guy with a yellow crest on his helmet at 2:30, who might be who you're thinking of, but he doesn't have the writing across the crest that the minifigure does, besides the crest being on the wrong side. I can't promise that the minifigure guy isn't somewhere in the background on D'Qar or the Raddus, but I don't think he's on a bomber.

I dunno. Finch Dallow is at least in the movie, and has a name and actor, even if the box doesn't say that; tons of the pilots are sold as 'X-Wing Pilot' or 'Rebel Pilot' or whatever even when the character has a name. I haven't found any source for the figure in the original set, though--I don't think that character design even made it into the movie. If it did, it's somebody way back in the background who doesn't have a name at all.

LEGO's motives are almost always inscrutable. We don't know why they make any of the choices they do, other than in the general sense that somebody in their hierarchy determined that it would be a good use of resources on the basis of criteria that aren't available to anyone on the outside. This was a much easier change to make than producing a new mold; if LEGO says they did it for consistency reasons I don't think we have any grounds to dispute it, especially since having the entire wrong character is a somewhat larger deal than just having the costume slightly (or even substantially) incorrect. Plus, replacing a named black character with a generic white character isn't a very good look, and LEGO seems to care about such things...