Fuppylodders

This is really nicely done! I think perhaps the canopy could be 2 studs wide rather than just one stud wide, but only the canopy pieces and the bits the canopy directly sits on.

''since it's exclusive to Target stores in the U.S'' Does that mean the UK won't get a release of this at all? Not even on Lego.com?

I have seen some republic gunships go on ebay for as low as £75 unboxed but complete good condition, they can often go at about £90-100 if you watch loads over a month or two. Ventress can come from the sith nightspeeder set if your happy not having the skirty thing she comes with in the RGS set. AT-TE 7675 is also a brilliant set to get (especially good for modding the interior) and is still going for relatively decent price. The latest AT-AT is a decent set, a couple parts keep breaking off but if its for display purposes it's not much of a problem, a nice bunch of figs comes with it too. V19 Torrent 7674 is a really nice set if you can get hold of one for about £35-40 (recently got mine unboxed /w instructions complete for £35). The republic fighter tank is worth getting if you can find one cheap enough, I missed out on a few really good priced ones due to being out at the time they ended... but unboxed they're still available every now and then at a good price. Good luck =D

Amazing to see the difference in print quality on each!

This ^^^^^^^^ Although that last photo is very cutely funny... 'What the....?'

My girlfriend got me one for Xmas. I then saw it was discontinued. I now owe her big time

Reply sent When the ARF trooper was getting sold by itself after loads being left (someone said a lego shop was selling them after promo day) how much were they being sold for? How soon after were they selling them? And would it be worth it to phone up a store asking them if they have any left over for sale or just to go down there? My closest store is about 45 miles away

I hate to say it, but you have literally landed yourself in this situation of which you have no one to blame but yourself. (I'm not having a go, sorry if it sounds like it, I'm just stating there is no justification for yourself to gripe about it in your situation) You havn't cared for the promotions, that is fine, but what about those that previously did, and so this year decided to hold fast until they knew what it was, and are now happy they waited? As you stated, TLG can't cater to everyones preferences for promo figs. With the increase in technology/better designed figs ok, a white Bobba Fett wasn't anything special to you, but just because nothing previously entertained your preferences, didn't mean they would have failed your preferences this year. Assumptions leave *HUGE* room for errors, of which should be taken into account when doing as such. As for the tight budget, that argument is totally moot. If you could justify spending the money back then regardless of it being budgeted or not, there is no difference in not making your purchasing back then, but putting that money aside and discounting it for all other reasons until May 4th came up and THEN spending your money on your budgeted for LSW sets. It's a SW promo, not a random promo. They could tweak it but it would start getting ridiculous with specifics... ***** Free TC-14 with every $75 purchase of which $30 must be purely on Star Wars sets!***** That still doesn't bring the overall price down. If you can justify spending the other $45 on other sets then it can also be spent on LSW which can be parted out and sold for more as many people already do and make profitable. Don't you want something for that otherwise $40minimum you'll end up spending on an aftermarket version? They are promoting LSW, not other themed sets. They want people to buy LSW. Hence why they are advertising it as just LSW. They also know that people desperate enough will scratch and scrape enough funds to get one of these figs one way or another. I really don't understand why people are still having a problem with the fact that this time round its a good fig and you have to spend $75 on purely LSW... Last year as an excuse that it should be with every $75 purchase is not an excuse/reason because everyone knows it was a mess up of which I am sure they will ensure doesn't happen this time round armed with that knowledge. Heck, last year I didn't even know about May the 4th. I've missed out on loads of promo stuff. I'm not moaning about the fact that no one told me it was on, its my own fault I found my way to Eurobricks when I did and learned whatever I learned from here after last May the 4th. I'm now armed with the knowledge that every May the 4th there couldd potentially be a promo fig. Regardless if I end up wanting it or not, I'll hold off on certain purchases until I know whether I want one or not. *edited out useless analogy :P*

In a weird, ironic contradictory sense, it is... unfairly fair....

It clearly states $75 on SW sets, it is entirely fair that only people who buy LSW are eligible for the promo fig. Like mutley said, it is exclusionary. I also believe the promo is intended to support an increase in LSW set sales, hence why it is shown in their text to be only eligible with LSW purchases. How could they increase LSW sales if they open it to everyone? So the only way to give a sudden boost in LSW sales would be make something special come free with pure LSW purchases. I do hope though that for the UK it isn't as much as £75 :(

how did you get the 20% off? :o

This is brilliant! I really enjoy looking at the simple, yet effective scenery around the ship also, of which itself is a magnificent design you have pulled off with so little info about it! Forgot to say... your original at 1.2 meters long... would have been awesome to have seen pics of that too! I do wonder though, after seeing your source pics (on moc pages) that perhaps it should be more of an equal length each side of the triangle shaped ship, perhaps using the 45 degree inverted 2x2 slopes instead of the 1x2x2 slopes? So, slightly wider, and 'shorter' in height, or... just as wide, but not as 'tall'? I do understand the difficulty in which you have currently accomplished with the lack of info available though, and do applaud you on what you have so far reached =D

OK, there goes... a fail You've helped me understand many things Aeroeza with your logical explanations and in-depth analysis. It has been nice to have a debate which ended in my gaining more knowledge than the usual (not on this forum) trolls that just end up throwing back wobblers and pointless name calling, I applaud your effort and shared knowledge in responses :)

Im all for this as well. Although I wouldn't be heartbroken if they didn't revisit some to top the series off, but it would be a bonus.

My first attempt at one of these I know it isn't scene accurate to the characters but it is all I had available at the time

I think I've finally come to a mutual agreement Brickadeer/Aeroeza Sorry if I've appeared (perhaps unintentionally aggressively) stubborn, it's just that when I have a particular belief, I need to have it completely argued into the ground and proven beyond all reasonable doubt in my mind to me that what I initially thought was not 'necessarily' the case, until I come to a mutual understanding with those I am debating with. I do have to say though, I picked up some interesting knowledge along the way

1) Sorry, my apologies. 'Disregarding' was too much of an exaggeration beyond reasonable use of the word in the sentence on my part. The rest of #1 I totally agree. 2) OK, that clears your statement up for me, so its not being totally disregarded. Only in a sense, 'temporarily' disregarded to gain the full understanding. 3) I understand what you mean, but perhaps you are confusing definition with explanation? I do understand what you mean about illumination, but you asked for a definition of those words, which is exactly what I done, and when applied, gave a very blunt and unexplained shallow definition of the euphamism. Sure I didn't explain anything to illuminate the atrocities to give the 'listener/reader' a greater understanding of the intensity of the period, but that would not fall under defining it, but more so, explaining it. What you further said, about its atrociousness and horror of that deplorable period etc, is an explanation after a definition. But I do see how you mean to compare this under a similar context for the UCS. 4) I understand how this applies now. Out of context the 2 simply do not make sense together, but in context, they show the correlation between the 2 opposite words. But surely this is different, as there is no confusion with the UCS words defined in or out of context? Simply, the 'illumination' created from the marketing to create the exaggerated image of it? 5) I never truly did understand that 6) OK here goes... Surely this is no different than (metaphorically speaking) our sun? It is illuminated and intensely bright creating all wondrous images/different opinionated views/different beautiful sights etc, but at the end of the day, it is still just a constant nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium regardless of what is seen from down here? 7) They hit me hard while I was down and unemployed with no income but just savings left... They're a manipulative bunch! RE: your conclusion, after all this, I don't feel that there is perhaps an 'explicit' meaning, more so a 'greatly' basic meaning which is left open to interpretation to the end customer to whatever suits their lust/desires to justify buying the set. Perhaps similar to Law? Which is in itself hugely open to different interpretation whenever particular situations of similar but slightly different circumstances arise...? If people feel it means exclusive, then so be it, as long as TLC get their customers money, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as they don't break away and change their strategy of only releasing new sets. (Even though they are currently not proving exclusivity wrong, I still don't feel it is intended as one of the meanings behind UCS, but left as an interpretation.) @mrklaw I'm personally not too fussed how obscure they are, as long as they don't release Anakin's butt ugly Twilight ship >.<

Very much this^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any links to screenshots to where we can follow your progress on adjustments/interior?

I could assume you would be able to manage $500-600, perhaps a bit less, as the majority of cheaper parts are located in the US, which means no customs and cheaper postage for you The exact price though, depends on how you personally source your cheapest parts.

1) I understand where you are coming from, however I do not feel they will ever become less 'ultimate' regardless of how detailed the system sets become, mainly for the fact that there will only ever be a set amount of detail you can manipulate onto a system set which is largely designed for minifigs. The system sets will never (in my opinion) match the majority of UCS sized sets (disregarding the N1 Starfighter). This if it were to be kept that way, would keep them just as ultimate. The current N1 already surpasses the previous UCS version in detail/aesthetics (in my opinion). The chromed parts do not do too much for it other than offer the current N1 an opportunity to be 'ever closer to being perfect'. 2) Im not sure I'd be willing to miss out... What of the B-wing? Would you be happy to miss out/hold off on that release for an updated X-wing? I have to say, I'd be more than happy bricklinking the X-wing (minus the canopy) in order to keep a new set on track for release. (I'm desperate for the B-Wing to come out ) The way things currently are, Im not opposed to them staying that way at all. We do have opportunity to design our own versions of MF's/Slave 1's/X-wings/Y-wings and make them reality through bricklink also. But with the limited releases, Id have to say Id be more than happy letting them release new ones and attempt to make mocs to cover re-designs than have no option but to moc something that hasn't been released yet.

@Brickadeer My inability has reduced! I believe I do see where you were heading with your metaphorical comparison now, looking into it over and over, although personally I feel it isn't the best one to use, mainly because you are comparing perception with reality. '"these changes" is pretty much irrelevant'. Perceived/opinionated changes. Yes, I do agree there are changes. But it is what these changes are, which I feel are the 'perceived/opinionated' part. But even with these changes, I do still feel that *currently* the line still falls under the UCS definitions even of the original. Nothing so far proves otherwise. So it still holds a solid relationship to its original meaning as it does now. It is only if they re-designed already made UCS sets that would contradict the (imo perceived) (new)meaning/definition of UCS. 'just as the current location of the car is a fact that exists independently of opinions about its current location anyone may hold.' That is due to physical evidence the car is physically there in all state and matter/molecules. It can't be argued in any way it is not there.

I beg to differ, but in your opinion, I am only lacking ability to distinguish etc. I would like you to explain the relationship between your 'comparison' and the relevant points please, rather than dismiss it as my inability to distinguish. Because I still fail to see the relationship. Perhaps if you could enlighten me, I may see the light? If you really do feel your comparison is correct, then you would have no problem whatsoever in ability to discuss its relationship. Fact I constantly deny? I'm sorry, but you show me where it is explicitly a fact that it is implicitly exclusive? Hard evidence please, not circumstantial/hearsay. And as I said, a 10 year precedence can not be considered either, as per the examples I gave, let alone the abundance of examples that are out there I have not mentioned. As for showing a way in which the original definition meaning of UCS contributes: They haven't changed the name/term slightly, to suit its apparent current new meaning behind its name. Thus the original term should still be implied because it is still used. Companies often change brands/names to suit modern times for fear of 'not keeping up with the times'. UCXS/UXCS? Nothing much to change on it really apart from add one letter. It is also not too dissimilar from the original UCS that people would think it something different altogether. It isn't too long either, so not like its 'too long of a name', but that would clear up a lot and implicitly stated exclusivity. I do have one question though, or rather, a ponder in my mind... UCS are primarily designed for AFOLS. For their high detailed-ness, size etc. Aeroeza, do you have the 10188? Because TLG broke the UCS mould with that set. It is more of a 'toy' than one of the usual display pieces. It is also, an intended 'toy'. Again, they have broke the mould with the executor, by adding in it, the stupidly small and almost pointless removable part so that there is a 'play room' for the minifigs. This, they done which some owners of the Executor have pointed out, makes that particular area prominent and does detract from its shape, albeit only slightly. They compromised the usual pattern which a decent amount of years precedence had set, to start catering for other people...?

.... it appears I can not edit my posts anymore Just for clarification, on my apparent 'repetitiveness'... my above post... point 1) only repeated because I am trying to clear up what I perceive is a misunderstanding between my intention of the original statement. Point #s 2,3,4,5 and 6. You show me where anywhere I have repeated them answers. RE: my response for point #3. If the last bracketed sentence typed in #3 is true, then my point #3 becomes moot and even TLG website have their own interpretation of the word 'exclusive' different than the 'defined' meaning, whereas it is not coupled with a few other words to create a 'greater' meaning but is individually used in this case. And if this is so, and my point #3 does become moot because of this, then I seriously will give up discussing/debating because they themselves are using/marketing words misleadingly, to which there is no point in arguing against for obvious reasons.

1) You misunderstand. I am not comparing it, I am saying "**could** it be classed as the final version of an X wing produced?" Because ultimate would imply it is the biggest and/or last of the series. You are separating this statement out of its own context I used it in, which 'appears' to give your argument a valid (but incorrect) basis to argue on, but when you put my statement back into context; (one of the other examples) "How can something be the last in a series when they keep producing more to go in the series?" I was creating situations, fitting them into the definitions to discover (imo) which definition fits the best. But it is pointless us both debating this point because you disregard the point that words still have the same definitions when words are 'married' with other words, and they suddenly gain this other random definition from somewhere. Whereas I believe words are used in particular places to express meaning from the definitions behind them, no matter what group of words they end up being used with. Could you point me to another word which when married with a couple of other words suddenly loses its original definition and gains a new one? I might be able to understand your point of view more if I could see many other existing examples. 2) You are making this assumption on the fact that you yourself only collect UCS and not the other 'toys' of lego. You have yourself, seperated the UCS range out of LSW system completely saying they are not comparable. Only to a point. (and that be in size/detail) The system/UCS sets are made out of lego. They are both themed on star wars. They are both built with playability-strength. Many *other* people collect both system and UCS. For them, that *would* be the ultimate X-wing to have for all their other versions of X-wing. Just because you distance yourself from system sets to collect UCS doesn't mean others do. They are ALL toys (UCS to a point). If I really wanted to, I could play with an ISD and swoosh it around (albeit very carefully ). I could put the Executor on a skateboard and slowly roll it alongside me swooshing some mini scale ISDs to replicate some scenes. Minifig scale shuttle? I don't even need to explain that one. (but yes, as I mentioned before, *to a point*. I do recognise the fact they come with a display stand which does indicate that they are more suitable for displaying. But are built strong enough that they *can* be played with if wanted to). 10188, Specifically designed to be a playset. Associated with UCS line due to its designated number. 3)mostly refer to my above answer, but also: http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Imperial-Shuttle-10212 http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Super-Star-Destroyer-10221 Look at the'Tags' section of both these. http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/R2-D2-10225 http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Town-Hall-10224 And now at these. But I can almost see it now... That's just the website, people always get things wrong on websites... or websites are often misleading... But I do see they have the sith infiltrator and nightspeeder 'package' listed as exclusive. Are they boxed paired up in a single box, or do they arrive in both their given boxes, but just 'together' in the same parcel? So perhaps depending on the answer to this, we could question the websites own list of 'exclusives' because at least the Infiltrator isn't an exclusive. Some UCS may well be exclusive, and are marketed as such, but not all of them as a whole UCS line as you would suggest. (unless my above dilemma proves their 'exclusive' marketing incorrect) 4) I do not know off the top of my head, but I am most definitely certain that greater things have been disregarded after a precedence of much longer than 10 years. If you really would like me to, I'll go find some (mars bar new taste/snickers re-branding etc), but I think you could agree my point is valid. Your own expressed knowledge proves to me you would know more than I 5) So basically, you are saying that they came up with a random 'uber' sounding but meaningless name, and then decided to let the preceding years dictate its own definition? I somehow believe that they came up with the name first, with a definition/intention behind the name, and then let the preceding years happen however they were to happen. @your stated marketing drive, again, refer to my reply #2+3. As for ignoring the other 2 letters, I have not ignored them, if you read my previous posts you shall see that I have also debated other peoples perceptions of the word 'collector/collection'. As for the word series, it has not come into question so there was no need to visit that word other than to randomly create fuss when there is no fuss needed. If you would like me to, then I shall. But I personally don't think there is any issue with that words meaning between any of us. 6) I think we can both agree on this. @Brickadeer How in the hell do you manage to get that situation to compare?! That is in no way similar, what would be similar, is saying how a Ford Focus mark 1 was made/designed, and then how a Ford Focus mk 3 is made/designed and yet is so different than the original mk 1 Focus. Your 'argument'?! More complies with how a UCS set was made in a factory in Denmark, and then how it ended up in my house. How the hell can you even believe that I am 'repeating' myself with invalid points when yours are totally incorrectly done in the first place?

Its nice, but the wings look too fat and narrow.