jdubbs

Always in motion is the future... but it's not looking good, at least not as mainline releases.

Nothing slow about it.

Sometimes products are marketed using a more generic name because of trademark issues. I believe this was the case with the Clone Turbo Tank, née Juggernaut.

Is there a contest to see how many different people can ask the exact same question? Because if so this thread is definitely winning.

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but looks like the UCS Death Star and D2C Tantive IV are retiring soon, along with the 20th Slave 1 and a bunch of lesser sets. Get 'em while you can... if you didn't, you know, "buy everything on day one".

"Thriving" is overstating it a bit. Their financial results have been mixed, at best, over the last year. I don't disagree that LEGO should take more risks and broaden its horizons, but I'm not sure that I would hold Funko up as the company to emulate. Especially when it comes to the measures they seem to take to create demand for their products. I think LEGO views the System line as their bread-n-butter, and so they're not willing to take chances there. On the other hand, they do take risks in off-shoots like constraction figs, Brickheadz, statues, helmets, mosaics, etc. Several of which have failed (or will eventually). Personally I wish they would do the reverse, and redirect resources away from these sublines to instead do System sets from the less-travelled corners of the trilogies, but I ain't running the show. Building someone else's MOC doesn't require any special skill or talent. It's not cheap, and there are some MOCs out there that fall apart if you so much as look at them funny. But if you want sets other than the sort that LEGO has released over the last 5-6 years, it's something you're probably going to need to start exploring.

For LEGO to produce a set like the TIE Bomber, it has to meet certain criteria, and unfortunately it just doesn't. It’s expensive ($100 min, more like $120 realistically), it’s not current, it’s not iconic enough (in LEGO’s view; that's all that matters here), it’s not playable enough (again, their opinion that counts here, not yours or mine). Honestly, it fails on all of these criteria, in LEGO’s view of the line. Yes, the Y-Wing offers identical playability, but it’s also half the cost, more iconic, more current (in terms of prominent appearances), etc. Yes, the Galaxy’s Edge ship is just as obscure, but it’s also very current, and more playable, and had potential to be way more visible, had COVID not shuttered Disney parks. There are loads of sets that compare to the Bomber in one way or another, but few (if any) that have been made that compare on all points. I don’t like that LEGO makes decisions this way, but it’s entirely consistent with how they run their Star Wars business. They’ve become really risk-averse with the System line over the last few years, and I don’t see that changing until this way of running things stops working for them. I wish they would take more chances, and venture outside the same well-worn, tried-and-true 20-odd sets they keep re-re-re-releasing. But it is what it is, and it’s probably going to get worse before it gets better, as the number of System sets continues to shrink year over year. The good news: there are plenty of good, sturdy, highly detailed TIE Bomber MOCs out there (enough of them that LEGO really ought to recognize its value to AFOLs, at least) that are comparable to what LEGO would do. And there aren’t any super-desirable minifigs that could only reasonably be packaged with it, which we’ll never see if LEGO doesn’t release its own version of this set. So, LEGO skipping it isn’t the end of the world...

There are several on Rebrickable that will hold minifigs, including Barneius', which I linked to above. There's another one that's around 1000 pieces, roughly equivalent to what LEGO would do, I would guess.

This is ill-informed hyperbole. Lucasfilm/Disney does approve licensees' products, sure. (This is true of virtually all licensors, not just Disney). But to suggest that they dictate the products being produced by the likes of LEGO, etc. is just factually incorrect. It is always a dialog between the two partners, not one company telling the other what to do (the simple truth is that neither company would agree to being dictated to by the other). LEGO presents its plans for the upcoming quarter/year and Disney has an opportunity to offer feedback... in the form of "We love this. We're iffy on that. We wish there were more of this other thing, because we've got it coming up in XYZ and we'd like to cross-merchandise it." In some cases Disney's requests are honored; in some cases they're not. You need only look to the wide disparity in products offered by Hasbro vs. Funko vs. LEGO to see that the licensee has a great deal of sway in shaping the assortment of toys they offer.

It appeared several times in Rebels. A near-indistinguishable ship (technically a TIE boarding ship) appeared in Rogue One. And a First Order version appeared in Resistance.

Only if $350 is your idea of “small”.

Sadly, it seems no one here speaks Aquilish.

Pretty sure they're both System scale. Both use a 6x6 cockpit glass piece, wing panels are the same number of studs tall, etc.

It's not the one pictured in the video you linked to, but Barneius' version is similar, and I've heard nothing but good things about it: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-22018/barneius/bomber-twin-ion-engine-bomber/

Yes, retailer exclusives (which all signs say the Resistance IT-whatever either is, or was intended to be, pre-COVID) are subsidized by those retailer partners, who have some say in selecting/developing the exclusives they carry. This happens with Amazon, with Target, with Walmart, with TRU (RIP) and so on. Saying "Disney is to blame because they co-financed a GE set instead of a JFO set" is no different than saying "Amazon is to blame because they co-financed the Razor Crest" or "Target is to blame because they co-financed a TIE Pilot Helmet". If you're gonna blame Disney, you gotta blame all these other guys too. Which translates to: "none of LEGO's largest resellers saw a market for a JFO set, so LEGO didn't either." Disney no doubt threw a bunch of money at Hasbro to produce toys for Galaxy's Edge too (they produced not one, but three GE sets). Hasbro still managed to put out JFO toys.

My point was never that Lego/Disney/Lucasfilm could do no wrong. My point was that this "Disney is to blame" explanation — a tired, played-out trope that makes very little sense in this case — has virtually no tangible evidence to support it.... even if you are somehow nimble enough to do the mental gymnastics required to connect Rinzler's comments about his cancelled book to LEGO's lack of a Fallen Order set. Look at what has come before, in terms of LEGO's support for non-movie media. Bare minimum support for previous video games (2 battle packs for Battlefront; 1 for Battlefront 2 — a game that was widely panned upon release, hardly instilling LEGO with confidence about JFO). Bare minimum support for Resistance (2 mid-range sets). Abortive support for Rebels half-way into its run. Support for The Mandalorian that lagged well behind other licensees like Hasbro, Funko, etc. Given all that, did anyone here really expect LEGO to embrace Fallen Order with a large-scale set like the Mantis? I'm not saying it wouldn't have been nice, but it would have taken a major shift in LEGO's approach to secondary media and a big leap of faith that this game would be substantially better than the last, to do anything larger than a Battle Pack at this point. It's just not what LEGO does. They pick safe sets that are sure-sellers, based predominantly on movies currently playing in cinemas, or failing that, the OT. They do this over and over and over again. It's not because Disney has it in for EA, or hates prequel fans, or dictates to LEGO, YOU MUST DO THIS. It's because that's what has worked for LEGO in the past, and that's what they'll continue to do, until it doesn't. I am not arguing that "companies can't make mistakes" (of course they do) or "companies aren't risk-averse" (or course they are). I am arguing that the company most likely to be playing it safe, the company most likely to have made the mistakes in these cases, is LEGO... not Disney. You can speculate about "rival factions" and "corporate sabotage" all you want, but logic — backed up by the precedents set by LEGO — makes a much stronger case for LEGO's own decisions being at work here.

There is a vast difference between cancelling a behind-the-scenes book detailing the ups and downs (and apparently there were a fair number of "downs") of a movie being produced and telling a licensee like LEGO that they can't produce merchandise to support one of Disney's flagship properties. Especially when Hasbro was clearly given no such edict. Is there some amount of corporate drama? I"m sure. Is it harder for for licensees to deal with Lucasfilm post-Disney? I actually know this to be true, first-hand. But actively sabotaging one licensee's products over another's? Saying "yes" to Hasbro but "no" to LEGO? When there is no conceivable business reason to do so, even if you try to imagine some kind of nefarious corporate politics at play? This kind of thinking is so illogical it borders on paranoia. Disney is a corporation, whose guiding principle is to make money. LEGO selling Disney-licensed products makes Disney more money. There is no business reason for Disney to actively thwart LEGO's ability to make money for them. It's not simplistic; it is simple. If you want to blame someone for LEGO ignoring Fallen Order, blame LEGO. The far more plausible explanation is that LEGO just didn't foresee it being the hit that it became, and chose not to support it with sets. (Bear in mind they barely supported Mandalorian out of the gate either, and have never thrown much money at video game tie-ins in the past... a battle pack or so, long after games are released, is the norm). And while I love the Making Of books that Rinzler wrote this far, you also need to take what Rinzler said with a healthy dose of salt. He's made no secret of the fact that he was unhappy his book was shelved, so it's entirely possible some of this is just sour grapes.

Of course, because Disney sabotaging the success of its products makes perfect sense. When in doubt, fall back on that old chestnut, “Blame Disney”.

When I said "this may be a sign of things to come" I meant more long-term — like a few years down the line. So maybe after releasing another set or two like this one, if they do well, they might transition from $15 BPs to something more like the $30 501st. I doubt they would do it based on the success of just one set. But who knows... we could also get a CMF next year and they discontinue the BPs outright. Hasbro's and LEGO's licensees were just renegotiated, after all. Anything's possible. From what I saw the Mandalorian BP inventory was constrained well before COVID, I assume because as one of only two Mandalorian sets available at the time (the other was also hard to find in some markets) it was just a very popular set. (It should be noted that the Praetorian Guards and Inferno Squad BPs were equally hard to find when they first came out, too... so some of it might just be retailers not ordering enough of these sets when they launch).

The cost of including minifigs in sets goes down the more the figs (or their parts) can be reused. So, including 3 identical stormtroopers is less expensive than including a stormtrooper, a snow trooper, and a biker scout, for instance. This is partly how the Harry Potter sets manage to have so many figs in them, for the same price... they often reuse the same Gryffindor torsos, or unprinted legs, on multiple figs in a set (I also suspect licensing fees are lower, but that's another matter). If there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that prices will go up. If LEGO can find a way to sell us $30 battle packs rather than $15 battle packs, they will do so. Even if they sell half as many, the margins on one $30 set are higher than two $15 sets... the baseline costs of printing, packaging, distribution all get cut in half (give or take). The point of Battle Packs is to sell figs. They are essentially an end-run around Hasbro's edict that LEGO cannot sell minifigs individually. (Side note: take that restriction away... would we still get battle packs? Probably not...) The army building aspect appeals to a lot of AFOLs (some more than others) but I would not agree it's the "point" of LEGO producing these sets. More a means to an end. If there's one thing I've learned on this forum, it's that there will be disgruntled AFOLs, always, no matter what.

I'm not so sure they would keep the $15 battle packs. I think if this set proves successful (which in all likelihood it will be), it could easily pave the way for sets like this to replace the Battle Packs altogether... for better or worse. Leaves room for Microfighters to (inevitably) creep up to the $15 price point, with duels covering the $20-25 spot.

When you express an opinion ("we were never getting X") and try to support it with fact-based or anecdotal evidence, that is by definition is "making an argument". The counter-argument: 3+1 BPs are common enough (as you yourself pointed out in the examples you cited) that it was entirely possible to see these same four 501st figs (3 regular + 1 airborne) in a $15 BP. But beyond all this, I think what some people are overlooking is that a lot of kids don't actually care about getting multiples of the same fig. To them, there's more value in getting a pack of 4 different figs, or 2+1`+1, which I think is a large part of the reason why this mix is so common, even though it costs LEGO more money than doing a set with 3 or 4 identical figs. A kid only has two hands. Stormtrooper goes in one, and Han Solo goes in the other. What's a kid supposed to do with three more stormtroopers? Yes, for those of us building scenes and buying tons and tons of sets, this may seem exasperating, but to a 5, 6, 7 year old... they only need one. All that said, I do think LEGO is "testing the waters" with this $30 glorified BP... and strongly suspect this is a sign of things to come,

I am reluctant to wade into this debate because it seems utterly, completely pointless, but your logic here escapes me. You start by listing not one, not two, but SIX examples of battle packs where we got 3-4 of the same figure — hardly what anyone would call an aberration, or even uncommon — and then proceed to claim we were "never" getting 3-4 501st figs in a $15 battle pack. The premise of your argument literally disproves your conclusion.

We’re all only as reliable as the information we’re fed. And we all get fed bogus info — some of which looks really credible — over and over. You’re right that the more experienced people will scrutinize these reports and verify if possible. But that doesn’t stop bad info from getting passed on by good people . Case in point: in December there was a set list circulating that sounded entirely plausible and realistic — Sith Star Destroyer, Resistance B-Wing, TIE Whisper, etc. — that made it into IG/ blog posts and YouTube videos from many of the sources you consider to be the most reliable. It was discussed here at length in part because it was reported by these hitherto-trustworthy sources. None of which made it any less bogus. And then even when the EU Toy Fairs started in January with all the actual sets on (private) display, proving this set list was fake, it still took weeks and weeks to get people here to let go of that fake list, because “it came from so-and-so, who is reliable and put it on IG/a website/YouTube, and so I believe it, regardless of your facts to the contrary”. I’m not saying to ignore or disbelieve people who bring you these reports. Just be aware that the vast majority of the people reporting these “leaks” are getting them second- or third-hand, or by data mining retail computer systems, or by scraping info off websites, or via semi-anonymous sources, or by repeating each other in a never-ending game of Telephone. All of which are subject to mistakes and misinformation and outright misdirection.

It's still a rumor, wherever it was first published. Whatever the source (I don't honestly pay much attention to the Instagrammers and YouTubers because half of them are more concerned with being "First!" than with verifying the info they receive and publish), everyone's been wrong before. Myself included. But my point was, even if Renown had been super-precise in sharing the info he had, it would have taken on a life of its own, just as the Imperial Shuttle rumor did. That's the nature of rumors. Every year there is more misinformation about what's coming than actual, accurate reports. Certain people get their jollies writing elaborate set lists, set descriptions, "eyewitness" reports, etc. to see how far people will run with it on places like this. Unless you're willing to ignore everything except what LEGO publishes on their website, you're going to spend a lot of time scrutinizing and debunking bogus info. You can be upset that you're not getting all the info you want exactly how you want it and when you want it, or you can accept that sometimes getting to the facts is like peeling an onion. Lots of layers to peel back, maybe a few tears, but eventually you get there.