LEGO Star Wars 2025 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[ArrowBricks]

6 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I don't think the MTT or turbo tank will be good either- my point is you're asking for them to be better in literally every way without the price increasing much, whilst as I said, many of the sets people say were better, even at the vastly lower amount of detail they had, already go for close to UCS prices nowadays purely accounting for inflation.

Realistically speaking, if you don't want lego to downsize the vehicles, then they're either going to have to be less detailed, come with fewer figures, or cost more. (Again, unless we've been misled about the turbo tank it could probably do 1 or 2 of these for the price they're asking, but it can't be everything.)

Again, take the 2010 tank, which would be $180 nowadays. Would you be OK with that 2010 level of detailing for near-UCS prices? (If so I honestly do understand your argument a lot more, exchanging detail for size is a pretty understandable tradeoff.)

I’ve never said I do not want the prices increased. I want sets that feel worthy of their price point, and I want sets that bridge the gap between the high-end system scale playsets and the UCS sets. 

Price-wise the gap is huge, quality wise it’s even bigger. I define quality in all the areas you will, including size. 

Hence, if the downscales continue to exist, especially for the larger sets, I need a new type of set that is larger, has better functionality, and better figures. I’d still need a strong level of detail. You’ve seen in the future Star Wars thread I’m not against downscales per se, but I am if there is now no viable alternative. 

Perhaps my illusion of value, is size. But I would also feel less aggrieved by smaller sets if I felt the quality was there - figures, moulds, functionality. A lot of that is a 8/10, maximum. 

[Kaijumeister]

8 hours ago, Swordy said:

Another sign this year was secretly dictated by MandR and the Council of Clone Bros. I'm kidding, of course, although the complaints about clone accessories began about three years ago, so I don't think making a correlation is unwarranted. I myself couldn't care less, but I'm glad for all of you who are excited. This does give me worry that, in order to spread costs, we'll see nothing but clones for the next couple years.

It’s a valid concern and one I share, however pauldrons and kamas are also something plenty of Imperial trooper types also use so hopefully this doesn’t portend yet even more excessive clone sets. 

@Darth_Bane13 I was thinking about the same thing earlier - a UCS U-Wing with a full interior and the full Rogue One team would be a perfect May UCS for next year. 

[BrickPrick]

9 hours ago, DarthTrocious said:

Any ideas on what 75433 Slave 1 will look like at 707 pieces? That’s 114 more pieces than 75312 (which comes with a mini-“stand”) and exactly 300 pieces less than 75243. I can’t really think where you’d put the extra 100+ pieces on 75312 without making it bigger, even with a more detailed SNOT style skirt.

This is a bit of a wild card to me. Given both the price tag and the piece count, i still think the new Jango Fett's Slave 1 will be much closer in scale to 75312 than 75243. But i don't know where you would put the 100+ pieces either. Maybe it includes a small landing platform this time around, similarly to the 75222 MBS Betrayal on Cloud City set. Either way, for what it is supposed to represent, it will be too small. Which is unfortunate, but finally getting a regular Jango Fett minifigure, will apease my inner FOMO demon. 

 

So, another attempt... What on earth happened to the MBS format? Why is no LAN member asking this question to one of the designers? The aforementioned 75222 had your typical shelf life of 1+ year. I remember the reception being divisive at first, but people seemed to came around on this set. Then the 75290 was much more popular with an impressive shelf life of 4+ years to boot. It's retirement last year might be a good sign for things to come? Has Lego forgotten that Endor exists? As long as there will be another one of these sets, i don't care what the call it. The old Death Stars, Ewok Village and Assault on Hoth were all MBS style sets in UCS disguise. It's just the distinction didn't exist back then. In my head canon, it was the Hoth debacle that prompted Lego to put a new label on the box. 

Edited May 17 by BrickPrick

[CallumPears]

4 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

In my head canon, it was the Hoth debacle that prompted Lego to put a new label on the box.

You're almost certainly right with that, which is silly because the real issue with the Hoth set was the inaccuracies and half-finished builds which wouldn't fly in an MBS set either.

Also that Assault on Hoth was a straight-up copy of the old Kenner Hoth playset. It even has the same issue with the generator only having 3 discs, and the Yavin-style tower turret. (Fun fact: the designers lied in an interview and said they chose to add that turret... no you copied it from the Kenner set.) 

Now the distinction between the labels just seems to be used by people defending LEGO for not putting enough minifigures in sets like the Sail Barge because "it's marked as UCS not MBS" as if the 3 letters they write on the front of the box has any effect on value whatsoever (yes people have legitimately argued that). 

Edited May 17 by CallumPears

[Darth_Bane13]

6 hours ago, Kaijumeister said:

@Darth_Bane13 I was thinking about the same thing earlier - a UCS U-Wing with a full interior and the full Rogue One team would be a perfect May UCS for next year. 

That would be perfect for the 10th anniversary of R1, I also think we need more UCS sets that aren't based on 1-6.

[CF Mitch]

15 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

I mean, right now it's closer to the bare minimum. Ten Battle Droids sounds like a lot, but we shouldn't forget they're dirt cheap for Lego to produce. If those two minifigs would have been replaced with two Seperatist leaders, that's alright i'd say. And if they would have been in addition to the current line-up, then we are getting into the bonus category. Even then it feels kinda wrong, because it would be just four full figs. But then the ten B1s would be more meaningful, i suppose. 

Also very true. I guess I was a little too generous with my initial assessment  
It's just that I'm a big fan of Clone Wars things and very thrilled we're finally getting Bly  
I did check earlier MTT's on Brickset and noticed the first playscale one only has 7 BD's, that's it. The latest one has 8 BD's, one pilot-type droid and three character minifigs, so there's quite some differences between those two generations. 

Regarding the new pauldrons... after plastic and cloth, I wondered what material would be left, then someone mentioned the rubbery capes, but I don't think that would look good at all.
It will allow for mobility of the minfig of course, but that's about it...

Regards.
Mitch

[Meaf]

7 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

This is a bit of a wild card to me. Given both the price tag and the piece count, i still think the new Jango Fett's Slave 1 will be much closer in scale to 75312 than 75243. But i don't know where you would put the 100+ pieces either. Maybe it includes a small landing platform this time around, similarly to the 75222 MBS Betrayal on Cloud City set. Either way, for what it is supposed to represent, it will be too small. Which is unfortunate, but finally getting a regular Jango Fett minifigure, will apease my inner FOMO demon. 

 

So, another attempt... What on earth happened to the MBS format? Why is no LAN member asking this question to one of the designers? The aforementioned 75222 had your typical shelf life of 1+ year. I remember the reception being divisive at first, but people seemed to came around on this set. Then the 75290 was much more popular with an impressive shelf life of 4+ years to boot. It's retirement last year might be a good sign for things to come? Has Lego forgotten that Endor exists? As long as there will be another one of these sets, i don't care what the call it. The old Death Stars, Ewok Village and Assault on Hoth were all MBS style sets in UCS disguise. It's just the distinction didn't exist back then. In my head canon, it was the Hoth debacle that prompted Lego to put a new label on the box. 

Well we're getting the Death Star this year, surely that counts right? I agree that it's weird we went so long without a new one, but if I had to take a guess, it's probably because the Cantina was so popular and ended up staying in production longer than Lego originally planned. I do find it a little disappointing that the next one is presumably the Death Star since it's been so long and it's going to be completely unaffordable for a lot of people, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't count unless they're done with the MBS branding altogether.

[CloneCommando99]

So. I was recently watching a couple of videos regarding the recent Vader Fortnite controversy… and I noticed that there are some ITTs placed around the Fortnite map.

I seriously question why Lego’s not made a proper ITT yet. It’s very popular due to appearances in Rebels, Mando, Outlaws, JFO and now Fortnite. It just feels like a no brainer for a imperial vehicle.

2 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

That would be perfect for the 10th anniversary of R1, I also think we need more UCS sets that aren't based on 1-6.

Nah. Zeta Class in the Milano scale would be better imo. The vehicle key to the movie’s plot, finally getting made would be a perfect and symbolic tribute to the 10th Anniversary of the best Disney SW movie (which of course has been made even better through Andor’s character building)

Agreed on your other point.

Day #25 of Tie Avenger summoning. Though I’d also calibrate my enthusiasm for a ISB Tactical Shuttle.
 

 

[Mandalorianknight]

10 hours ago, ArrowBricks said:

I’ve never said I do not want the prices increased. I want sets that feel worthy of their price point, and I want sets that bridge the gap between the high-end system scale playsets and the UCS sets. 

Price-wise the gap is huge, quality wise it’s even bigger. I define quality in all the areas you will, including size. 

Hence, if the downscales continue to exist, especially for the larger sets, I need a new type of set that is larger, has better functionality, and better figures. I’d still need a strong level of detail. You’ve seen in the future Star Wars thread I’m not against downscales per se, but I am if there is now no viable alternative. 

Perhaps my illusion of value, is size. But I would also feel less aggrieved by smaller sets if I felt the quality was there - figures, moulds, functionality. A lot of that is a 8/10, maximum. 

My confusion is then just that the largest system sets are $180, and UCS sets go as low as $200, even nowadays with the AT-ST. You said you wanted them more affordable than UCS, but there's just no room between them.

9 hours ago, Kaijumeister said:

It’s a valid concern and one I share, however pauldrons and kamas are also something plenty of Imperial trooper types also use so hopefully this doesn’t portend yet even more excessive clone sets. 

@Darth_Bane13 I was thinking about the same thing earlier - a UCS U-Wing with a full interior and the full Rogue One team would be a perfect May UCS for next year. 

But the snowtroopers need to sit down! However will they do this with kamas (ignore that figures with cloth kamas could sit perfectly fine....)

That'd be my third-ever UCS set (Boba's Slave One and the AT-AT being the other two). At $240 it could easily be more or less figure scale, and we could finally get a good cockpit setup- though it might require a new mold.

20 minutes ago, Meaf said:

Well we're getting the Death Star this year, surely that counts right?

Most likely,  although at $1000 there's certainly a price gap between it and the previous MBS sets. I still hope we can get an Endor or Yavin soon. (And hey, we could get Cassian's house as a Yavin GWP if we want more Andor, that would fit well.)

Edited May 17 by Mandalorianknight

[Darth_Bane13]

3 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Nah. Zeta Class in the Milano scale would be better imo. The vehicle key to the movie’s plot, finally getting made would be a perfect and symbolic tribute to the 10th Anniversary of the best Disney SW movie (which of course has been made even better through Andor’s character building)

I'd be equally happy with either of them

[Something_Awesome]

23 hours ago, DarthTrocious said:

Any ideas on what 75433 Slave 1 will look like at 707 pieces? That’s 114 more pieces than 75312 (which comes with a mini-“stand”) and exactly 300 pieces less than 75243. I can’t really think where you’d put the extra 100+ pieces on 75312 without making it bigger, even with a more detailed SNOT style skirt.

We will know most of what we need when we see the cockpit being used. Would be nice to have that leaked.

 

FYI, Ninjago sets are getting bigger. Star Wars getting smaller. LOL. Not complaining as I prefer Ninjago. Just pointing it out. We.re also getting more Ninjago per year, too.

[CallumPears]

9 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Zeta Class in the Milano scale would be better

Ooh yes please. Along with the TIE Reaper that's the main thing I want them to make from Rogue One.

Honestly as much as I love Krennic's shuttle I do wonder whether it was the right choice to make that instead of the Zeta.

[Mandalorianknight]

45 minutes ago, CallumPears said:

Honestly as much as I love Krennic's shuttle I do wonder whether it was the right choice to make that instead of the Zeta.

IIRC either Lucasfilm wanted the Zeta but the designers preferred to do Krennic's (Which makes sense, it's a more interesting build), or the other way around. Either way one group behind the scenes wanted the Zeta instead but it didn't end up happening.

[icm]

11 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

IIRC either Lucasfilm wanted the Zeta but the designers preferred to do Krennic's (Which makes sense, it's a more interesting build), or the other way around. Either way one group behind the scenes wanted the Zeta instead but it didn't end up happening.

Lucasfilm wanted the Zeta but Hans Burkhard Schlomer persuaded them to accept a set of the Krennic shuttle instead, because he felt like he could do justice to the Krennic shuttle at the price point but he couldn't do justice to the Zeta.

 

Bricklist notes

Lucasfilm thought we should rather make the "hero" 4-winged transport ship, but we convinced them to do Krennic's shuttle instead with a sketch model I made.

Edited May 18 by icm

[DarthTrocious]

1 hour ago, Something_Awesome said:

We will know most of what we need when we see the cockpit being used. Would be nice to have that leaked.

 

FYI, Ninjago sets are getting bigger. Star Wars getting smaller. LOL. Not complaining as I prefer Ninjago. Just pointing it out. We.re also getting more Ninjago per year, too.

Splitting the difference between 75243 and 75312 would be a 5-stud wide windscreen. That would be uncanny.

I wish Master Wu flew an ARC-170.

[CallumPears]

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

IIRC either Lucasfilm wanted the Zeta but the designers preferred to do Krennic's (Which makes sense, it's a more interesting build), or the other way around. Either way one group behind the scenes wanted the Zeta instead but it didn't end up happening.

Yeah exactly. As icm says it was Lucasfilm suggesting the Zeta and LEGO chose Krennic's instead. 

I guess if it's true that they had to stick to the same price point (I didn't know that part) then choosing Krennic's makes sense as the Zeta would definitely need to cost more to get done properly, but idk now I think I'd prefer if they'd increased the price and made a really good Zeta just because Krennic's shuttle doesn't really do anything in the movie or show up in much other media. 

Edited May 18 by CallumPears

[AD_Bricks]

4 hours ago, Something_Awesome said:

We will know most of what we need when we see the cockpit being used. Would be nice to have that leaked.

Personally, as someone who is a fan of 75312 for the fact that it was pretty affordable while still being displayable (and imo I don't feel much draw towards a set that's more than twice the price that still only fits one figure and one carbonite brick either way - not much need for it to be bigger if there's nothing else inside (as long as the outside still looks nice)), the main thing I want to know is whether it'll have space for both Jango and Boba. To me it seems like the extra pieces when compared to 75312 might just be going into making it just big enough to accommodate 2 figures rather than 1, but I guess we'll see. Other than that, it can pretty much just be a recolour of 75312 and I'll be happy.

[ArrowBricks]

15 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

My confusion is then just that the largest system sets are $180, and UCS sets go as low as $200, even nowadays with the AT-ST. You said you wanted them more affordable than UCS, but there's just no room between them.

Well they definitely aren’t $180. 

Interesting point about the AT-ST. I can’t comment fully as I have not seen it, but it does sounds like it’s a displayable piece, no figures etc. Is it an 18+ set? Either way,  not sure we really needed this set…

There is space, $170-$230 is a huge window. Just because a UCS set fits in that window too doesnt mean what I am suggesting can’t either. The UCS TIE interceptor is $230, X-Wing $240, FireSpray $300. 

Lego got the Dark Falcon right last year, that’s the sort of set the Turbo Tank and the MTT should be. The Star Destroyer last year should have been just that little bit bigger. Figure wise there’s a little left on the table and I don’t think anyone of us would complain if it’s was $170 if it was bigger, Cal had the Poncho and an extra Stromtrooper. The Ghost at $160 is near enough perfect, minus the figures. Again, that’s the standard. 

In my world, the 2013 UCS Ewok Village would become what I am talking about now. It’s not a UCS set, but it’s a playset, with amazing figures and detail. Unusually overpriced at the time vs £. 

Edited May 18 by ArrowBricks

[BacktoBricks]

 

8 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

I can’t comment fully as I have not seen it, but it does sounds like it’s a displayable piece, no figures etc. Is it an 18+ set? Either way,  not sure we really needed this set. 

I'm guessing it's this year's consolatory OT UCS. Lego probably knows full well that a lot of people are going to be priced out of the Death Star, but don't want to lose all that OT UCS market. So the AT-ST is a nice little set they can release the same year as the massive Death Star without it overshadowing the Death Star in terms of popularity and which they can produce at the same time. Anything larger (if they weren't already released) like an AT-AT, Sail Barge etc would be bigger and compete for funds and production space, plus the AT-ST doesn't require lots of minifigures, although I would argue a driver would be at least warranted. That's my slightly cynical take anyway. 

And, and this is a big And, could it be Lego know it will fit in with next year's MBS ... MBS Ewok Village for 2026. A girl can hope right? 

[BrickPrick]

22 hours ago, CallumPears said:

You're almost certainly right with that, which is silly because the real issue with the Hoth set was the inaccuracies and half-finished builds which wouldn't fly in an MBS set either.

Also that Assault on Hoth was a straight-up copy of the old Kenner Hoth playset. It even has the same issue with the generator only having 3 discs, and the Yavin-style tower turret. (Fun fact: the designers lied in an interview and said they chose to add that turret... no you copied it from the Kenner set.) 

Now the distinction between the labels just seems to be used by people defending LEGO for not putting enough minifigures in sets like the Sail Barge because "it's marked as UCS not MBS" as if the 3 letters they write on the front of the box has any effect on value whatsoever (yes people have legitimately argued that). 

Yep, i heard about the whole Kenner thing... extremely embarrassing. 

Of course, i agree, the three different letters on the box should not be used as an excuse to increase or decrease the value by default. However, when the MBS was still an active thing, the difference between it and UCS was more obvious to me. UCS is meant to be a big ship display model with next to no playablity. MBS is a large location based set, which is both displayable and playable, so lots of included minifigures make more sense. But now, since giant UCS sets have an actual fleshed out interior and all, i feel like the lines are more blurred than they used to be. So getting more minifigs (besides the price twice or thrice as high than standard UCS sets) makes more sense, too.

20 hours ago, CF Mitch said:

Also very true. I guess I was a little too generous with my initial assessment  
It's just that I'm a big fan of Clone Wars things and very thrilled we're finally getting Bly  
I did check earlier MTT's on Brickset and noticed the first playscale one only has 7 BD's, that's it. The latest one has 8 BD's, one pilot-type droid and three character minifigs, so there's quite some differences between those two generations. 

Regarding the new pauldrons... after plastic and cloth, I wondered what material would be left, then someone mentioned the rubbery capes, but I don't think that would look good at all.
It will allow for mobility of the minfig of course, but that's about it...

Regards.
Mitch

Yeah, you were very... General Generous with this one. Have you considered doing some PR for Lego or something? 

Oh yeah, i'm somewhat of a big clone guy as well. So don't get me wrong... won't say no to Bly, too. Just wished he would have either showed up in a different set. Or in the best case scenario, we didn't have to choose between a Seperatist leader or named Clone Trooper for the MTT in the first place. Can't have everything, i suppose. Even though Lego likes to take that principle too seriously for my taste. 

18 hours ago, Meaf said:

Well we're getting the Death Star this year, surely that counts right? I agree that it's weird we went so long without a new one, but if I had to take a guess, it's probably because the Cantina was so popular and ended up staying in production longer than Lego originally planned. I do find it a little disappointing that the next one is presumably the Death Star since it's been so long and it's going to be completely unaffordable for a lot of people, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't count unless they're done with the MBS branding altogether.

Well, as things stand right now, it's labeled as a UCS set. But speaking of the aforementioned blurred line, that doesn't have to mean much. As i doubt Lego would include 38 minifigures (other than charging 1000 bucks ) in the set, just so that every person could put them on a separate display stand. It has to have some play features and accessable interior at this point. So it might as well be another Death Star that says UCS on the the box, but in reality is more like MBS. 

 

Day #13 of asking Lego not to mutilate the upcoming Clone Turbo Tank. 

[CloneCommando99]

Day #26 of Tie Avenger requesting 

 

After the Turbo Tank and 327th BP’s outcome, I don’t have too much faith in the MTT being good either.
 

Soon these days will end.

[Darth_Bane13]

6 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Day #26 of Tie Avenger requesting 

 

After the Turbo Tank and 327th BP’s outcome, I don’t have too much faith in the MTT being good either.
 

Soon these days will end.

The MTT is $30 more than the 2014 one (inflation adjusted) so I think it might be decent.

[BrickPrick]

1 hour ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

The MTT is $30 more than the 2014 one (inflation adjusted) so I think it might be decent.

Yeah, while the MTT itself will probably leave plenty to be desired, right next to the CTT, it very well could end up looking like the definitive flagship summer set to go. 

 

To add one more thing about the proper design for Kaminoans, given that Lego went with tall legs instead of the skirt piece, they would have kinda reminded me of their goofy appearance from  the original Lego Star Wars Videogame. It was an alrighty attempt for 2005, like Travellers Tales had to do so many things from scratch, because it simply didn't exist in physical form back then. Heck, some of it still doesn't exist today! But for 2020s standards with all those open options by now... Yeah, that wouldn't have been the greatest. 

Edited May 18 by BrickPrick

[Llewop]

I do hope we get some more info soon. We must be days away from some good leaks. Want to see how much of a pounding my wallet is going to take over the next few months/year 

[Virginia_Bricks]

12 hours ago, ArrowBricks said:

Lego got the Dark Falcon right last year, that’s the sort of set the Turbo Tank and the MTT should be. The Star Destroyer last year should have been just that little bit bigger. Figure wise there’s a little left on the table and I don’t think anyone of us would complain if it’s was $170 if it was bigger, Cal had the Poncho and an extra Stromtrooper. The Ghost at $160 is near enough perfect, minus the figures. Again, that’s the standard.

For another $10 with an extra figure and a new cloth accessory, you are getting maybe 50 extra pieces which wouldn't add any noticeable extra volume. So that is not viable.

To make it actually bigger you would probably need 300+ more pieces because volume is cubed and dimensions need to be consistent for stability purposes so you can't just easily add 1-2 studs of length. So you end up with a ~$200 set and maybe they add another minifigure repeat and people still complain.