Fallenangel

I'm sorry KielDaMan this is like the third time I've attacked you without realizing it was you. On a forum with no human faces it's easy to forget who's who (IMO anyway). Considering the sloping areas on the underside of the Alpha-3 you're right it probably would look better if it wasn't sitting on the bottom; maybe hovering like the N-1. (Actually, we never actually see the underside of the V-wing touch the ground in the film, so this is quite possible.) But seeing the incline on the underside of the nose,I think that having a central foot for landing gear (in the style of the Delta-7) sticking out would look somewhat awkward. Actually TIEs are stored on racks so wouldn't the wing panels be irrelevant as to whether or not it would need landing gear? I always thought that they intentionally designed the ARC-170 to have a belly that slopes outward from the body for the purpose of sitting on its belly (and, of course, as a grip on the toy for kids to hold on to - the Prequels are all about merchandising). And the LEGO set is pretty deformed compared to its movie counterpart so I don't consider it a very good caliber. (Don't get me wrong, 7259 is a great set, but the proportions and shape are way off.) Anyone else notice that the set numbers for these new sets barely relate to each other? This is very different from what we've been seeing for LEGO in the past 5 or 6 years in terms of Star Wars sets. I mean come on there's 7913 7914 and 7915 but then it's 7929 7930 and 7931 and then 7868 and 7869 what? I still suspect that the last two are fake. The box art is just too plain compared to the other sets and the content of the sets are unusual. (Plus Rex's blaster effects look crappy.)

I dismantle MOCs to make other MOCs all the time so it probably isn't a big deal for him. For me any "sentimental value" is in the memories of research and experimentation that went into building an MOC rather than the finished product (because I'm never satisfied with it I think there's just too much of a gap between the large fuselage and the smaller one. Still have doubts about the brickbuilt head...

You can see here that the V-wing's underside is flat. If you remember in Revenge of the Sith the V-wings did not deploy any landing gear as they landed; they only pivoted their wing mounts. Maybe LEGO incorporated a Technic system (as on the V-19) for some sort of pop-out landing gear when you turned the wing mounts... but that's unlikely, considering the size and price range of the set. And anyway the most accurate choice would be for the V-wing to have no landing gear, as it has enough leverage to land on its underside when the wing mounts are rotated. EDIT: Why would it be "wrong not to have" landing gear for the V-wing? It doesn't look like it's supposed to have landing gear in the first place. TIEs don't have landing gear either - do you find that "wrong"? What about other prequel fighters without landing gear, like the N-1 or the Nantex fighter? (Yes, they are too smooth to be legitimate Star Wars, but they are canon, whether I like it or not.) If I remember correctly, the ARC-170 doesn't have landing gear either. No way we're getting that much stuff for $30. Not having known LEGO in the last three years. The droid carrier is certainly a huge improvement over the last two renditions but it's still too small. If LEGO had decided to knock the fancy printed Gungans they could probably have increased the size of the carrier, or at least added another droid or two. (Not that anyone really wants droids anymore now that the new series made them deathly annoying - more stormtroopers, LEGO!)

I don't know what that 'proton cannon' thing is but it sure is ugly. Whatever happened to the tri-droid? The term 'proton cannon' sounds familiar though... Going off of the clear pictures of the set lineup it looks like the new Delta-7 is a real set. (Up until now I suspected it was a photoshop job with somebody else's MOC.) Still no Original Trilogy stuff? Come on LEGO! Even back in '06 you included both generations with an Alpha-3 Nimbus. I see Captain Tarpals.

5 months and only 8 posts? Call me crazy but I swear in the "less blurry" version of Greg's teaser the set on the left looks like the left pod of a Cloud Car. If the white thing is in fact a Consular I'm glad LEGO made it more elongated than their previous chunky rendition.

spurcus mens = 'nasty mind'?

Didn't I post a picture of that same MOC a few weeks back? I don't get it... what's a spurcus mens? Perhaps LEGO is like Walter Kovacs and they're afraid to make a UCS TIE Fighter because then the errors would be even more conspicuous than they already are on other UCS sets. In any case, a UCS TIE Fighter does seem pretty essential... I guess LEGO will get around to it after they finish reverse-engineering Rocko's AT-AT and

Uninspired, I think, is the word I was looking for to describe these. It's a completely unexpected lineup (in my opinion at least) and it really looks like LEGO just went off the ball. Why did LEGO decide to make yet another Sith Infiltrator when the last two turned out more or less terrible? Or maybe they decided that this time they'd copy this guy next. (No offense to Reto.) According to Wookieepedia a "Republic Frigate" is simply a repainted Consular cruiser with a couple guns slapped onto it. I'm really hoping it's not actually this thing because man it is ugly. Despite my affection for the Consular I'm not a fan of the new paintjob and besides LEGO will probably make another squashed version. I guess a Geonosian fighter is at least halfway decent since now we actually have V-19s to confront them. (Only thing missing now is the Azure Angel...) What's really disappointing is the fact that only one of these sets are based off something prior to 1999 - and it's an Endor set. (Didn't we already get the be-all, end-all Endor set?) Next year is the 20th anniversary of Heir to the Empire and there are no sets even vaguely reminiscient of the Thrawn Trilogy. Unless that 'Republic Frigate' is actually a Dreadnought cruiser... but that's unlikely.

Bah, retcons?* *(I'm sorry, but going off my incredulity regarding the second list and what you just posted, I am increasingly suspicious of the authenticity of your statement. And the fact that you would mention such factors as difficulty in translation or unreliable figures makes it all the more fisy. Like the others, I'm starting to think you are making an attempt to unnecessarily draw attention to yourself through a fabricated list in the process of trying to piggyback off the other suspicious list. There is absolutely no way LEGO would release multiple $100+ sets with 20+ minifigures each and expect their primary market - children with working parents' budgets, that is - to even consider buying one of them. That's pretty much an excited 6-year old jumping off the high dive with an umbrella.)

??? (remembers horribly overpriced Freeco Speeder set) Oh, that Talz! Yeah, I guess an acklay would be pretty neat.

You realize the 7658 Y-wing is in fact very distorted? With a consider number of inaccuracies (the section of the canopy under the ion cannon is missing, the ends of the boosters do not line up with the main body where they should, the astromech droid is sideways, etc). To be honest, I regretted buying mine... For me it was the LEGO Consular-class cruiser from the video game (as well as the similar 7665 Republic Cruiser) that made me notice the Radiant VII and made The Phantom Menace worthwhile.

Is nobody interested in a LEGO gundark? And of course I'd like a rancor, but a Dathomir version from The Courtship of Princess Leia: And an Ithorian or a Talz classifies as a 'creature' right? I've always thought that a display of a really big LEGO exogorth with a midi-sized Millennium Falcon would look really neat.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say please change the design for the head; I don't dmac's construction quite completely captures the feel of the head section:

Very nice extensive use of slope bricks to give a "rough" feel to the scenery. The body of the Atgar cannon looks a bit too compact compared to the real one but the dish section looks amazing. I just don't understand where you got the idea to put those cylindrical structures on the sides (attached by binoculars - what are those?) As for the snowspeeder... The first thing I noticed is that the slope in the front is a whopping 6 studs long. It should definitely be less than that; even on LEGO's rendition it was at most 4 studs out. I think the reason you felt the need to enlarge the front is because the rear portion is too small compared to the rest of the model; there should be a vast platform to the rear of the gunner's viewport. See the studio model below: I think many of us here are aware by now that many of the diagrams in the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels are quite inaccurate (for example, the AT-ST, the Tantive IV, and the Imperial Star Destroyer). This is a perfect example of why movie screenshots and studio models prove most reliable. However, I think what you've done with the interior of the snowspeeder is simply amazing. The amount of detail you've crammed into that small space is staggering. And the grilles in the rear are captured more or less perfectly. I like that you've used both the new cap molds as well as the older pilot helmets for the Hoth troopers, looks very nice.

If by "better bet" you mean "has a huge gap in the back where LEGO forced in a clunky flick-fire missile system" then yeah the new one is fine. Of course, if you have the budget for the $80 8097 set I would suggest picking up one of these instead. Cheaper, more accurate, greater amount of detail. I'm aware that it may be blasphemy to recommend a plastic model kit on a LEGO enthusiast forum, but you have to remember there are some starships which LEGO just doesn't do it justice.

Whoops. Here's what I meant to post: I also found this:

It's nice to see people are quoting me already.

Well if this is any indication...

Where did you get those model kit-looking things? I want a Chiss clawcraft too. According to the starwars.com databank, the "Imperial Landing Craft" was "an entirely computer-generated starship"; in other words, it's unlikely that any of it exists beyond its brief appearance in the Special Edition.

Wookieepedia identifies the Sentinel-class landing craft and the Imperial landing craft as the same ship. In addition, it mentions that its first appearance was in the Shadows of the Empire video game.

I see. Am I right in guessing that 42 is your avatar because it's the answer to "The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything"? There's an unusual amount of small vehicles in this set. I don't see why LEGO can't just sell the STAPs separately and use the pricetag as an excuse to make a decent Delta-7B. It makes sense if there are more people like Mr Man who just want the little vehicles.

Do not underestimate how difficult it is to build a LEGO X-wing. I know everybody says it's easy but almost nobody's done a decent job on brickshelf. This is probably the best I've seen. I think for an MOC you have to find one or two particular starships or vehicles you really like and then work on doing a really good job of that, it takes a lot of thought. If you look at Junsier's or errbt's brickshelf folder or even mine you can see what I mean.

I was just about to post a review of my own Brickdoctor. Looks like you beat me to it In any case, expect my own review by the end of next week everyone. If you ask me, the "Golden Age" was more of a "Golden Year" since 2006 was the only year in which the sets strongly resembled the studio models they were based on. (The '07 sets were in general poorly proportioned and not that great.)

I'm not exactly certain what you are asking here. In your first post you asked for MINI designs for both the fighters and the space cruisers as well as the Death star. Then you say that you have the design for a MINI Star Destroyer and you won't be including the smaller fighters. So which is it? Do you need a design for the larger ships, the smaller ships, or both? For the fighters, I think roguebantha's models would be helful, as well as legostein. It appears Foxhound made a Home One scaled to the 10030 UCS Imperial Star Destroyer. Reto made the Mon Calamari Star Cruiser Liberty in the same scale some time back. chipstar built a mini-scale Executor and Redemption. Nathan Sawaya made a pretty good-sized Second Death Star. If you include all these at varying perspectives, it'll look vaguely like the Battle of Endor. Hope this helps.

I though the new AT-ST and AT-RT releases changed a lot from the previous renditions. Which goes back to why LEGO re-hashes some vehicles and not others (like the X-wing). EDIT: Mr Man what's with the sig quote involving my name?