Fallenangel

Perhaps this is more along the lines of what you're looking for.

They're not really my pictures (I got them off brickshelf and other photo-sharing sitse) so I can't resize them, sorry. On second thought, some of the features on the newer version are exaggerated (for example, the turbolaser cannons and the viewport); when you add its squatness into the equation the set looks rather awkard. A modified version of the UCS (basically downsize the engines and stretch the whole ship) is your best bet so here are the instructions. Yeah, building most of the set from your own parts may take a lot of time but it sure beats paying $500 for a boxed set on bricklink. Keep in mind that you will make many of the same mistakes LEGO did if you use the schematics from the Essential Guide.

This set is a lot like the despicable 6212 X-wing in that LEGO is releasing virtually the exact same thing with a few cosmetic changes, different minifigures, and new extras. It appears they do not feel the need to improve, or even alter, their current design for the Delta-7B despite the fact that if kids wanted the same ship in different colors they would probably just buy multiples and paint the parts. (Or replace them, or something.) Combine this with my dislike for the ugly Delta-7B "retcon starfighter" in general and you have the reason why I will definitely pass on this. You do realize that Grievous was originally a Kaleesh (a reptilian people from Kalee - from the Revenge of the Sith video game ), and that his faceplate allegedly resembles the masks that his people wear. His "heart" is definitely not human.

As for which you should buy, I'll let you decide that for yourself. As for which is better, I think this is really a case where you have to look at the original studio model. Compare with the 10019 UCS rendition: A nice comparison image with the newer 10198 exclusive: Both of them look a little too stocky compared to the actual model for me so I really don't like either of them. However, the newer version obviously has a slimmer feel to it which I think is more true to the elongated look of the original. Of course, this is due more to the main engines on the newer version than anything else - There is a section between the main engines and what I believe to be a docking point (the cylindrical structure near the rear of the ship) which has been all but omitted in both renditions: It's interesting that the 10019 UCS rendition resembles a Micro Machine toy from the '90s: It's the one on the right. Compare to the Hasbro die-cast rendition to its right, which is more accurate to the original.

As for which you should buy, I'll let you decide that for yourself. As for which is better, I think this is really a case where you have to look at the original studio model: Compare with the 10019 UCS rendition: A nice comparison image with the newer 10198 exclusive: Both of them look a little too stocky compared to the actual model for me so I really don't like either of them. However, the newer version obviously has a slimmer feel to it which I think is more true to the elongated look of the original. Of course, this is due more to the main engines on the newer version than anything else - There is a section between the main engines and what I believe to be a docking point (the cylindrical structure near the rear of the ship) which has been all but omitted in both renditions:

Right. And of course the reason for this reassignment was solely game mechanics. The same reason that the T-47s in Battlefront 2 had no cannon(only a harpoon shaped like a plug) and Grievous's fighter was labeled a 'CIS Strike Bomber'. Game mechanics are the reason why I don't consider Star Wars video games to be canon - unless (as with Jedi Starfighter) a certain canon starship or vehicle appeared in a video game prior to a true canon appearance. There is no second variant of the Alpha-3 Nimbus fighter. And the existing variant does not feature wing panels that fold toward each other. (And I hope we all know Hasbro toys aren't canon...) From Wookieepedia: By the way, where is that comic from? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Even better than comparing it to other LEGO models.

But as far as I know, they only fold that way in the video games and the Hasbro toys (most of which I consider to be non-canon). I'm fairly certain that the V-wings shown in Revenge of the Sith just had the entire wing structure pivot 90 degrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiotiRvQaTg&feature=related In the first few seconds, you can clearly see a V-wing landing next to the Theta-class shuttle. From the Star Wars databank: If you can show me a passage from Labyrinth of Evil or a panel from a canon Star Wars comic book released prior to Revenge of the Sith, I'll believe you and everyone else on this forum who says the V-wing's wing panels fold like scissors, but until then, I stand by the film footage.

Oh. I thought Brickdoctor had meant that a Mon Calamari star cruiser was a rumored August 2011 set. A bit of a meh for me personally (warts don't look good in LEGO) but still good to hear.

Well, it looks like a lot has happened in the short time I was out of it. What Mon Cal cruiser? A new midi-scale/UCS set? It appears I was right about this BARC speeder being the fattest one yet. It looks like this is another case of LEGO making a fair attempt to include detail on their set but screwed up the scale - not a very good decision in my opinion, especially in a vehicle like this where the size difference is clearly seen (as opposed to more closed-in starships like the Jedi starfighter, which LEGO also released a huge version of). I don't know what those orange clones are, but I definitely won't be buying any of these. What bulky Technic?? You don't need bulky Technic. Really, you don't. I see bar clips on that V-wing, so it's likely LEGO is doing the folding wings again. What's worse, LEGO appears to have replaced the click hinges on the inner panels with bar clips as well. (The inner panels also look smaller.) I wonder why? The droid carrier, I think, is the best of the lot, as seen from this screenshot: Of course, I think I would have preferred a longer rack and more droids over Gungans. The bounter hunter ship looks all right and has some neat play features, but it doesn't really look like Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I like the look of it, but not in a way that's reminiscient of Star Wars. And the fact that they've altered Aurra Sing's character is a bit upsetting as well. That V-wing looks terrible. It's still too stretched out, and the piece LEGO has used to attach the cannons kills the look of the ship. The impression of being stretched out is enhanced by the fact that it's now fully rectangular at the rear and doesn't begin to taper out until halfway down the cockpit; strange, since the "real" V-wing fighter's cockpit is surrounded at the base by large red wedges. That cockpit is clearly oversized; I would have preferred this piece. I still think it's strange that LEGO would put one of these where there's supposed to be a hollow, and with a sticker at that. The sides are still flat stacked plates. I see some sort of printing or sticker directly in front of the Q7 dome, what is that? The roof tiles behind the cockpit have been omitted and replaced with stacked plates. The Mandalorians in the battlepack look so much like Jango Fett it's almost scary. Not too promising of a year so far; still hoping for more sets from the Original Trilogy (or the pre-'99 Expanded Universe, that would be nice too).

From what I remember, both the 10188 Death Star playset as well as the 8038 Endor playset were fairly large diorama-type sets with large numbers of minifigures, and they seemed to sell pretty well. (I hope we're all aware that you can't pick up the Death Star or the Endor shield bunker and fly it around a room. Yes, there is the small TIE Advanced x1 and the Ewok glider, but I doubt people would pay $100+ for one of those.) And besides, I think with all the new molds such a large set would be a toss to LEGO collectors like many of the people on these forums and probably not aimed at kids who would swallow the new Boba Fett helmet and jetpack without a second thought as to its future value. So a Geonosis arena is very possible. And kids can play with a properly scaled hailfire droid too. (It would be another opportunity for flick-fire missiles that actually look good, as with the 8086 droid tri-fighter.) For August 2011 sets, there's the aforementioned Mace Windu's Jedi starfighter, and then someone keeps bringing up Cloud City.

With the increasing number of new LEGO minifigure molds for Star Wars and other lines, 'a bunch of minifigures' is quickly becoming the ideal LEGO set. Hence the collectible minifigure packs, the continued success of the battlepacks and LEGO's reluctance to give us troop carrier vehicles that could actually act as troop carriers (i. e. an AT-AT with more than two snowtroopers) to force fans into buying more battlepacks - with the exception of the 7662 MTT, which doesn't really count because battle droids aren't legitimate minifigures. It would only make sense, then, that the highlight of a year devoted to the Prequels would be a Geonosis arena set with Agen Kolar and 5 or 6 exclusive Jedi I've never heard of and who appear for less than a second in the entire film. And of course maybe someone would want a LEGO acklay, reek, or nexu. Perhaps a properly sized hailfire droid could be included, as the most recent rendition is pitiful in terms of size.

Of course it is. By 'perfect' I simply meant that I believed errbt's X-wing was the best way I've ever seen anyone build a LEGO X-wing. Despite what some may say, I believe it's definitely superior to bwhp's, dateman's, mikepsiaki's, or roguebantha's versions. (And mine, of course.) Brickdoctor's UCS V-wing or Badgerboy's UCS Grievous fighter isn't really 'perfect' either. Just by LEGO and LEGO fan standards. If you really wanted 'perfect', you would choose FineMolds or Master Replicas over amateur LEGO fans. LEGO has made ships that have appeared in the films or series for like less than 10 minutes (droid carrier, Gasgano's pod, Wookiee flyer, etc.) so I don't see why not. Of course, I'd rather LEGO choose something obscure from the Original Trilogy or the EU (skipray blastboat anyone?) As long as it's well done... and a 'Trident' would make a nice parts pack for orange/ dark tan pieces.

I apologize KielDaMan; it appears that when I join in the sarcasm other board members appear to be able to use so fluently I tend to overdo it a bit. I did not and probably never will 'perfect' the LEGO X-wing. That has nothing to do with it; it's just that I feel LEGO is mistaken 'about a great many things' when it comes to the X-wing. I feel the same way about the Delta-7 Aethersprite and the Slave I. Besides, someone else already did. Regardless of whether we're getting another Mace Windu or not, I think it would probably be his Eta-2, and not his Delta-7, which will be released; as I had previously stated, seeing as Phase II clones, ARC-170 starfighters, and the like has already featured in the newer Clone Wars series, it's likely that the Eta-2 Actis interceptor should make its appearance soon. (After all, the Eta-2 and the ARC-170 made its debut appearance in the same year of the war - 20 BBY. Not 22 BBY - this 'Battle of Malastare' is obviously a retcon.) Of course, there's the risk of the 'new' set just having almost exactly the same build as Anakin's and Obi-wan's Jedi starfighters (with purple rather than yellow or dark blue) and the same oversized (B-wing) canopy piece as a cockpit bulb again. Or worse, a vulture droid included. I would disagree commanderneyo; we know from the TIE/d, TIE Crawler, TIE Defender, and Rogue Shadow sets (among others) that LEGO is aware of the EU. Rather than just rehashes, it means that LEGO has a near-infinite choice of starships, minifigures, and situations with which they can please Original Trilogy (pre-'99 Star Wars) fans and NOT just rehashes. (I've been saying it for years.)

Simply amazing, spacepilot3000. It's usually pretty difficult to make a UCS of anything. Other than the pods not being the same length, it should be noted that the engine arrangement actually looks like this: Here's a reference picture showing the pods to be the same length (one of the models used in the film, I may add - certainly more reliable than CGI renderings!). Also, the middle bit between the pods look just a bit too big. Otherwise, the details look spot on. I particularly like what you've done with the pylons.

Um? Mm? Hmm. Mm-hmm. this too. Get the point yet? For LEGO, playability & stability >>> accuracy. ALWAYS. That's part of why people make MOCs.

Fantastic WIP Diaabo - though I have to admit I wouldn't say it's quite 99% complete. My major gripe is the fact that you're using these to attach the wings. Personally I don't think this piece very much suits a TIE at all. Look at the connection on the actual studio model. (I know I used the same piece on my own TIE Interceptor, but that was only because I was low on parts.) A better alternative would be to simply attach some 2x2 round bricks to the cockpit with SNOT (running a technic axle through for stability, of course) and attaching plates directly to those. Of course, using this, you would have to rework the connection between the arms and the ball cockpit - I can't help but think these are too thick for the TIE Interceptor - after all, remember that the Interceptor's design resembles the original TIE more closely than any of its film variants. Which reminds me - the method for mounting the angled panels shouldn't be limited to these. I suggest doing something like this. The panels are connected via this piece. This would also reduce the HUGE gaps in the wings. There should be guns on the wings - and the raised segments on either side of the guns are oriented in the other direction. To avoid a blocky cockpit, dump the TIE windshield piece (there's too much transparency anyway - unless you plan to paint the piece) and use this piece as the windshield, and SNOT it around that. Something similar to this technique could work. A TIE Interceptor, like the TIE fighter, has only two ion engines, as well as a hexagonal rear viewport. (It is not, as LEGO appears to think, the main booster.) I hope that my suggestions and all the reference pictures I linked to were helpful. Keep at it Diaabo and your TIE interceptor could be the best one on these forums.

What about Heir to the Empire, the Jedi Academy Trilogy, Droids, and Ewoks? Or the Marvel and Dark Horse comic books? I'm pretty sure all of those were around way before Jar Jar Binks. And the Special Edition too. LEGO would have had quite a lot of stuff to make sets off of, even without the Prequels. Heck, maybe the license would've even been better at the beginning without Menace; I would much rather have had a K-wing from the Black Fleet Crisis or the E-wing from Dark Empire over that 'craptastic' Gungan Sub or even the 7153 Slave I. In the U.S. (or at least, here in Texas) the summer sets don't arrive until late July/early August and the winter sets until the first week of January.

What about Grievous's wheel bike? I think the fact that you can definitely tell the parts are from the LAAT/i makes it look like it was built from salvaged scrap metal, which is pretty neat.

I think what he means is we got an ARC-170 this year, so it's unlikely that we'll be getting a UCS of the same ship next year. But seeing as LEGO released their 7657 AT-ST the year after their 10174 UCS rendition you never know for sure. On the other hand, neither the ARC nor the A-wing got a whole lot of screen time in the movies(although the A-wing is fairly significant), so I doubt the possibility for a UCS of either of those. I think a better possibilty is the Executor or AT-AT so many people seem to be wanting. Or a Venator, since a lot of Clone Wars fans seem to want one of those too. Like everyone has already said, it's highly unlikely LEGO will halt the license when they're already making so much money off of it (although if LEGO decides to do more sets like the 8097 Slave I that may change). As long as there's demand for LEGO Star Wars sets it's likely LEGO will keep providing.

Those clones should have blue markings... but that can't be helped can it? It's always nice to see very small details represented in LEGO; I really like the way the bases of the columns are built, and the bookcase is superb. The expressions on the Jedi are nice as well - where did you get those minifigure heads?

If the Death Star isn't a space station, then what is? And let's not forget that even the prototype for that space station was conceived in a space station. And there are many more...

Yes I love the '03 Clone Wars so much more than the new one!!! The mods look great. Any chance of making more stuff from '03 Clone Wars? (Say, the Seismic Tank, Saesee Tiin's Eta-2, etc.)?

Look through my brickshelf folder (the one titled "8099review" - when it's public, that is) and you'll see that the large ones aren't mine; they were merely the best I could find and I couldn't reupload them because then I think some people on the Net would be more than a little upset. And besides this review is much more in depth in comparison to starstreak's dontcha think?

Thanks KimT for indexing! I'm glad I was able to contribute to the wonderful Eurobricks Review Index!!!