ARC2149Nova

That's supposed to be Moradmin Bast, Tarkin's right hand man.

Don't have pictures (yet), but for those of you looking to make versions of the Imperial Joint Chiefs, these are two options I've discovered. Cassio Tagge head, I personally used this hair, to interesting effect. The official bowl cut part is much too large for Tagge's buzz-bowl. Conan Antonio Motti with this hairpiece, which I think works very well. As far as torsos/rank badges go, none of the current torsos are accurate, so whatever feels right will do. For reference, Tagge has six red bars, while Motti has 2 blue then 4 red. Thought I'd throw that out there.

Same. I must have just missed them.

Never tell me the odds!

10. Just not Luke's. There's the green one with triple-vertical engines. I think that would make for a cool design. No way we're getting a new Luke's Landspeeder, we just got one in January.

To be fair to the aforementioned, none of those exactly required new molds (save for Bespin Leia, who needed a new hair piece), but you make a good observation. However, you really can't tell with these things until they're released.

I also want to apologize for contributing to it going so far.

https://brickset.com/article/52610/interview-with-star-wars-designers-75288-at-at-and-ucs-poll That would be cool.

We may see something revealed at SDCC, if not then August is a good bet.

You're right. I wasn't calling @Pedilego a shill though, rather it was a remark I made in my previous post. At the end of the day, some will see LEGO's rationale, and others won't. Black Series vehicles to date have been one FO TIE Fighter, Luke's Landspeeder, Rey's Speeder, Dewback (yes, technically a vehicle), Enfys Nest's Speeder, and a Snowspeeder that released this year. For the most part I agree with the sentiment, but most of us who collect the figures (4 inch or 6 inch) focus primarily on the figures themselves, and less on the vehicles. But overall I agree that MOCs are a good alternative.

I mean in the sense of "they didn't make X so make your own". Yes, we can do that, and there's nothing lacking in that aspect, but it's always nice getting an official set. Some of us are MOCers, others like to stick to the sets as much as we can. You can't argue that everyone into LEGO is into it for MOCing, some of us collect sets as they are, and on rare occasions whip up something new.

@Pedilego I've got some time now, so I'll give your response a reply it deserves. It is a shill move though, to defend a company in which you have no stake. And to present the opposing side as silly for "not making a set you want" is kind of an insult. If you want, the logic on both sides is flawed equally. Both on the part of the designers and on us, if you care to see it that way. To point one: Sure, the IT-S is promotional. No one's arguing that. What we are saying is that it's very hypocritical to make a $100 set of a vehicle no ones really knows or cares about, and then say another $100 vehicle that would attract more people is too risky for business. Galaxy's Edge is the new Star Tours for all intent and purposes. It will always be a tad obscure. That doesn't make the IT-S a bad set/set choice, nor does it invalidate the IT-S as a counterpoint to the "Risky business" argument. To point two: Timing is important. Strike while the iron is hot. But let's think this through: A Pelta-class frigate over an Imperial Interdictor? One example of how even timing doesn't help with this obscurity argument. Yes, Fallen Order is a one-and-down game (for now), but the Star Wars franchise is over 40 years old. Surely anything from those movies are old hat by now, but that doesn't stop them from being popular. The TIE Bomber would've been a nice choice for ESB's 40th Anniversary, but we got helmets instead (nothing against those). People are still wanting sets from TCW, RO, and Rebels, sets that now we may never see due to this type of reasoning. Broader context only further highlights the absurdity of the argument. Timing, Iconicity, Price, Playability, etc., those altogether could make for a compelling case. But if even one link is weak, the whole chain is useless. To each of these variables: Time - ESB's 40th Anniversary. We have an AT-AT and... nothing else (System scale or UCS). Pretty poor to shove one of the best Star Wars movies (and one of the best movies period) in this manner. For it's 30th Anniversary, we got battle packs, an AT-AT, Wampa Cave, and an Echo Base within a year of it (most being the same year, while Echo Base was in 2011). Iconicity: For a franchise this big, it's a slippery argument. If Boba Fett and Slave I are icons, it's certainly not because of screentime or effective coolness. Slave I is very blink-and-you-miss-it in Empire, but we still know and love it. TIEs of any make will always be a good choice (irregardless of price...looking at you TIE Dagger) because the TIE standard design is very iconic, and derivatives of said design are easily recognizable, even if through sheer knowledge that "it's some kind of TIE Fighter". After all, not everyone knows what a TIE Advance/Interceptor/Defender is, but they'd be able to tell that it's a TIE Fighter. This isn't rocket science. To further that point, the Razorcrest is the least memorable thing about the Mandalorian. Everyone knows Mando and The Child, maybe Cara and Kuill, and of course Moff Gideon. That said, it's still a great vehicle, and it's getting a set, like it should. Price: The most contentious point by far, and the arguments of expense are quite valid. However, let's not let LEGO off the hook for a problem that they created. No way does any TIE Fighter need to cost $70. But now it does. The TIE from 2012 was a great model, and only cost about $50. Yes, new parts and all that jazz, but a whole $20 price hike in around what? Six years? Get outta here! So, yes, pricing is a strong point, but it's not entirely reasonable. Playability: We're gonna argue this til the Sun goes out. What even counts as a play feature, anyway? It's a very arbitrary concept, and if it can't be specifically codified, then it's an invalid argument to make, either for or against the Bomber. Isn't everyone like this? But even so, this isn't about "Winning an argument", there are no winners here. I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't a close interpersonal disagreement. LEGO said X, we're debating over whether or not X makes sense. Long-story short, it doesn't. And even if some can justify LEGO's reasoning, it doesn't make it any less flawed. But at the end of it all, no one's right or wrong here. And more importantly, we can't prove one way or the other that LEGO is lying. It's not possible. Good words to live by, no doubt. Then maybe we campaign the old fashioned way: with our wallet. If we keep supporting LEGO come hell or high water, then they'll continue the way they're going now. Whatever happened to "No Risk No Reward"? All business is risky, but when it gets too comfy at the top, and the risks stop, things get stale and begin to suck. It's happened with gaming, it's happened with movies and television, and now in our collectible hobbies. The only company taking real risks right now is Funko, because there's literally a Pop for everything. And they are thriving because of it. Not saying LEGO needs to be Funko, but there's certainly a lesson to take here. Like I said earlier though, not everyone into LEGO is also seriously involved in MOCing. It shouldn't be up to us to do LEGO's job for them. That said, I agree that it's time we pay MOCers more attention. And yes, Ozzel, Needa, and whoever else are fairly easy to make, still would be nice to have "official" versions.

I know when I'm being insulted, but that's okay. Defending LEGO no matter the cost. Consumerism at its finest. Look, if you want to buy into the Bantha Crap fine, but at the end of the day, there is no reason to defend a corporation, especially LEGO. Also, to say Razor Crest is more well known than the TIE Bomber, I could scream that's so far off from the truth. But I'm done with this. And we don't know sales numbers. Never have and never will, and to be frank, don't need to. I always find it funny that no matter what, some will always shill for a company. Dude come on. Is this what we're coming to? Petty insults? But for those of us who can't/don't MOC, we shouldn't have to always do LEGO's job for them. Still, Jerac and others know what's what, so supporting them is a reasonable alternative.

That's honestly a little lazy, but at least one doesn't need the sets for the codes, so it's sort of a win in my book. Ryan does seem to get things done. "Are all AFOLs this reckless?" Ryan: "Only the good ones." (This is a quote from TCW for any wondering).

Don't even attempt to defend this lazy logic. All these intricate excuses when it just comes down to whether or not they really want to make one. Even large ships and walkers only have the basic amount of play features. Open this hatch, seat this figure, launch this projectile. No matter how much you try to spin this, it fails on every level. "They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough. They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require." This is such a literal contradiction it's not even funny. Tacking on that extra bit changes nothing. There hasn't been a real "playset" (for Star Wars at least) in ages. A Bomber is quite par for the course. This isn't just about one ship, though. If something like the TIE Bomber gets leaked on because of this logic, then what's to stop them from saying the same about anything? What's next? ARC-170? new B-Wing? Disney can only influence so much. I'm actually starting to suspect that Lego (or at least the teams behind certain themes) are their own worst enemy. Dude, the last TIE Bomber was so long ago, that's a pretty poor reason. It hasn't been made in over 17 years because they've been either (a) preoccupied, or (b) just been putting it off, to the point where making one is "financially unfeasible". First off, no one buying sets now is going to hunt down a 17-year-old, massively outdated set. I'll go back as far as 2013, maybe 2012 in rare cases, because of the current "style" if you will. But 2003? Hell no, and many would agree with me. I understand if you prefer the older type sets, nothing wrong with that of course, but a 2003 TIE (of any make) and a 2016/17/18 TIE just won't mix. And yes, while many of us would like a Jango's Slave I remake, arguably TIE Bomber/Interceptor takes precedence. I would agree with that. The problem in any case isn't the recognition, it's the use of that as an excuse, when it's clearly not the case.

I completely agree with this. They keep trying to increase the size of fighter craft to the point of ridiculous expense. If they were to make the next few TIEs along the size of, say the 2012 fighter, I'm sure they could crank out a few varieties at the $50-$70 price point, with $70 obviously reserved for the Bomber. After all, a TIE of any kind doesn't need to be the size of an AT-AT!

I understood you, I was just adding to your point. If it's not a joke, then it's very obnoxious. It's likely just a poorly made quip, so I'm not too mad at it, but as was mentioned, there's some serious dissonance going on. And considering the designers' freeness of speech, as it were, I doubt Lego had any real handling power over this too.

In regards to the Night Buzzard, all told it's in like 3 scenes at best. So, comparatively (purely screentime wise) it's like the Slave I (though arguably the Slave I is more iconic). Compared to the TIE Bomber, they may as well be the same. Not going into comic and book appearances as by-and-large most Star Wars fans don't even glance at such media, even though a lot of it is really good. (the main Star Wars and Vader comics for instance). But in either case, we've got so many out there sets, it kills me to think they're seriously gonna overstep the TIE Bomber. And besides, it's not our fault they keep bumping up the size of sets (and therefore the price). This petty excuse is gonna become the "reason" why we're not going to ever escape the cycle of 5 X-Wings in 5 years. These last couple interviews kinda suck the soul out of the hobby for me, because it's an admission of apathy. They only care about easy money, not about creativity, or at the very bare minimum unique and interesting set designs. Besides, how many fighters in the past 10 years had any playability beyond firing missiles, opening wings, opening the cockpit, and maybe drop a few bombs. It's crazy. And with things like the AT-OT, Gozanti, and even the Catamaran are great sets! The AT-OT alone is one of the most iconic TCW sets Lego's ever done. I want them to be interviewed about the IT-S next, because after this bantha fodder, I want to hear the contradictory logic they try to pull on us. And like I said before, I'm not complaining against these sets, I think most of them are great, but these interviews are killing me. That is all. You'd think. "Buy everything day one" is the most soullessly corporate thing I've ever heard. And maybe they meant it in jest, but it comes off so smug and cocky. Lego used to have heart. I believe it still does to some degree, but these designers just don't seem to care.

And the IT-S is... Most likely, but at this rate, we might never get another non-standard TIE (yes, this is a deliberate overreaction ) Like I said, I'm all for risky sets, no matter which corner they're from, but this "too niche" excuse is, like you said, poorly phrased at best and outright stupid at worst.

Some long-overdo Imp (and Rebel) vehicles: TIE Interceptor TIE Bomber TIE Defender Raider-class Corvette Interdictor Arquitens Light Cruiser (also the Republic version) Victory Star Destroyer MC80 Liberty (reduced to System ISD scale) Hammerhead Corvette

Another day, another poor excuse: https://brickset.com/article/52610/interview-with-star-wars-designers-75288-at-at-and-ucs-poll Those of us who want a TIE Bomber in the System scale, Lego seems to think it's "too niche" and "too expensive" to get a set. Meanwhile... Seriously, these interviews kinda peeve me, the designers have the absolute dumbest rationale behind set decisions. On the other hand, it's worth noting that what many of us suspected was true. All 3 poll options had working prototypes at the time of the poll, so Nebulon-B and UCS TIE Bomber still have a shot. But they might be too niche. For the record, nothing against the shaded sets, but come on guys, we're not stupid. That AT-AT has gotta be a day-one for me.

I spent 30 mins searching for this, and I have to say: "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?" Who knew the old bat had a heart after all?

I think Garindan is superfluous to a Cantina set, unless of course they give us some extra scenery. In that case, why not make characters like Wioslea? Of course, he should eventually be made, but maybe as an add-on to the next OT Falcon.

I didn't mean for the Duros to get a new head, Cad Bane and the Rebel fighter didn't get one, there's no need really. And the Givin certainly doesn't (though the ghosts from the new Haunted House would make for good customs), I think Snaggletooth (if included) and Ponda Baba are the only real headmolds needed.

I think this is the most likely outcome, but if they really wanted too, I can at least see some of the characters that require the least amount of attention. I doubt we'll see Gotals or Devaronians, but I can see Snaggletooth, one of the Duros and a Givin. That would still be pretty cool. As for the sandtroopers, I hope we get all three pauldrons. A reissue of the Dewback would be welcome also. If they wanted to, they could give us a new creature (Ronto) and two Jawas (can't have a Tatooine set without a Jawa or Tusken, can we?). Obviously, we won't get both, but if we got a Ronto, some of the costs could go into that, making the Cantina slightly smaller, and with the likely sidebuilds (I think the green landspeeder is quite likely to get made over Luke's) the $350 can hit all bases.