Clone OPatra Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 There is no reason for the box to be anything, or gravity of anything to come into play. Its a picture, superimposed on a cardboard box, it's just artwork, there is no theorycrafting or overthinking to be done. Hey, I just thought it looked weird. If you held the model at that angle and the cockpit was supposed to rotate freely, it wouldn't look like that. Like in the two system-scale versions, the ship is basically at this angle, but the cockpit isn't: Like I said before, it doesn't matter, but it stood out to me and I explained why. Quote
Vindicare Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I genuinely cannot understand the level of negativity here. I suppose everybody is merely stating their opinion, but it comes off as sweeping condemnations. No amount of acronyms, matters, and in reality, there should be no such divisive ideas as AFOL or any such thing. Lego makes great products, and as a company has an a mazing record and standing both in its local and international community, and in the business world. They can be enjoyed by a wide variety of peoples, and the products are for us all, you should not feel slighted, or relegated to a specific demographic based on your perception of a model. That being said, I hope someday, despite the freedom the interent, and forums allow, every naysayer takes a moment to breathe, and realize that the model is MADE out of LEGOS. You can change anything you do not like about it. And so if the worst thing about it is that it costs too much, then you can Download the instructions for free from Lego, and build your own. If you do not mind the price, and dont like the parts, you can substitute your own. You can use it as a guideline for a great creation of your own. Expressing yourself here is one thing, but this all reeks of vitriolic exaggerations, and really detracts from any sort of productive, sensible discussion. Any employee of Lego, or outsider reading this, could not help but to be left with the impression that Lego fans here are never satisfied, constantly disappointed, unable or unwilling to compromise, and for some reason still buying Legos, like some sort of addict in denial. Is this how you mean to portray yourselves? Just because were fans of LEGO doesn't mean we all like everything they put out... I do like the model, but I don't spend that much on a set unless I really like it. In this case, I don't. If it were the same price as 10225 R2-D2, I'd probably buy it. Take 10195, for example. Even without the minifigs, it still has(in my opinion) 1 great model(LAAT/c) and 1 good model(AT-OT)for $250. Quote
Aeroeza Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 My initial impressions of the B-Wing are positive. As a stickler for accuracy (abstracted by the brick of course) and with a preference for 'modelling' rather than 'play features' and 'minifigs' then this set ticks all the boxes for me ( and I'd suggest most UCS buffs out there for which this set targets). Well done Lego!! I've a few observations regarding the set and also some of the posts to date... 1. A ton of detail and respect for the movie model is evident (I'd expect nothing less from this subset brand of Lego collectables) and it's dimensions are very close to the studio model. I think overall it's a strong UCS release! 2. I'm not sure I can detect any bending wing. Perhaps if you hold it by the engine block then some stress is placed on the wing but on the stand the wing acts as a support and would altogether remove any such stresses where it attaches to the engine block. 3. Why criticize the set for not being minifig scale? A UCS not being minifig scale can only be an observational comment rather than a criticism of a sets design. It's scale (like all UCS' aspiring to a bit of accuracy) is based on which bricks best capture the models dimensions not whether you can fit an anthropomorphically challenged Minifig into it! Perhaps a little B-Wing pilot waving from the display stand would entice some collectors but I'd be surprised if its absence would stop many from purchasing the set. After all it's a hard core collector's display model and shouldn't be criticized for what it isn't! 4. The fact that the cockpit isn't particularly attracted to the ground is again, for the purposes of a display model, an irrelevant criticism! I'm surprised some posts continue to reflect on this lack of 'gravity operated playability' as worth mentioning. This isn't a system set so again apply criticism where relevant i.e. to the successful application of Lego to a model's design and how it reflects the marketing intent of the set. 5. I'm not surprised people are beginning to recognize just how reasonable and O.K. a choice the cockpit piece is (rather than simply being a shoddy design shortcut)! It isn't perfect, looking a little awkward at first, but on balance it does capture qualities of the studio model i.e. sleek and rounded both along it's width and length), which a brick built solution couldn't. As to which might be better is down to individual aesthetic choice rather than any 'absolute maxim' of good taste. As an alternative, using the system Falcon's cockpit instead would fail to account for many of these curves and probably be too short. Besides, all UCS' make the occasional compromise and necessary abstraction in order to work and this one is a legitimate design choice given what brick resources are available verses the nature of the original source material. Short of a specialized cockpit piece like 7191's then I doubt a perfect solution is out there! So blame the limitations of the brick instead 'cause the B-Wing's cockpit was always gonna be a tough nut to crack in Lego!! 5. The price of Lego! Good lordie people! Why go on about it? Price vs. # of bricks has long been shown to be a misleading measure of a sets worth. Weight and other various costs of production obviously affect the value of these consumables. If you truly think Lego tends to be regularly and grossly overpriced then you may need to rethink your hobby! Let's face it, it ain't gonna get cheaper folks and our musings on price fluctuations of Lego over time are rarely 'informed' or for that matter amount to much 'illumination' on the subject. If you want the B-Wing and you think it's $50 too expansive now then consider the likelihood of it costing twice as much in five years time! You could of course risk waiting for a sale but either way just buy two sets and sell the second in five years so as your hobby costs you little to nothing in the medium term. Try making Lego work for you instead and please spare the forum of endless price complaints! 6. As for negativity on Eurobricks well there is plenty of it here and it's old news. Criticism should be a tool used responsibly and reasonably otherwise, well, you lend yourself to reasonable and responsible criticism! Don't bother being defensive about it just consider your posts from more angles in future. It's O.K. not to like something, even better if you can express why, but put it in context regarding your own bias or general perceptions of your hobby. After all it will make for a richer forum... Now I do have one criticism regarding the set (which is reasonable) and this is based on its functionality as a display model- It looks to me as though you cannot place the B-Wing on the stand with its S-Foils in a closed position! What a shame! It looks awesome with its wings in either position... Perhaps we'll need to come up with a second stand to account for the design oversight! Overall on first impressions I'd call this set a return to form for Lego and its UCS vehicles. (10221 was a very mixed up creature and didn't sit well in the stomach after digestion)!! Quote
apps Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 My initial impressions of the B-Wing are positive. As a stickler for accuracy (abstracted by the brick of course) and with a preference for 'modelling' rather than 'play features' and 'minifigs' then this set ticks all the boxes for me ( and I'd suggest most UCS buffs out there for which this set targets). Well done Lego!! I've a few observations regarding the set and also some of the posts to date... 1. A ton of detail and respect for the movie model is evident (I'd expect nothing less from this subset brand of Lego collectables) and it's dimensions are very close to the studio model. I think overall it's a strong UCS release! 2. I'm not sure I can detect any bending wing. Perhaps if you hold it by the engine block then some stress is placed on the wing but on the stand the wing acts as a support and would altogether remove any such stresses where it attaches to the engine block. 3. Why criticize the set for not being minifig scale? A UCS not being minifig scale can only be an observational comment rather than a criticism of a sets design. It's scale (like all UCS' aspiring to a bit of accuracy) is based on which bricks best capture the models dimensions not whether you can fit an anthropomorphically challenged Minifig into it! Perhaps a little B-Wing pilot waving from the display stand would entice some collectors but I'd be surprised if its absence would stop many from purchasing the set. After all it's a hard core collector's display model and shouldn't be criticized for what it isn't! 4. The fact that the cockpit isn't particularly attracted to the ground is again, for the purposes of a display model, an irrelevant criticism! I'm surprised some posts continue to reflect on this lack of 'gravity operated playability' as worth mentioning. This isn't a system set so again apply criticism where relevant i.e. to the successful application of Lego to a model's design and how it reflects the marketing intent of the set. 5. I'm not surprised people are beginning to recognize just how reasonable and O.K. a choice the cockpit piece is (rather than simply being a shoddy design shortcut)! It isn't perfect, looking a little awkward at first, but on balance it does capture qualities of the studio model i.e. sleek and rounded both along it's width and length), which a brick built solution couldn't. As to which might be better is down to individual aesthetic choice rather than any 'absolute maxim' of good taste. As an alternative, using the system Falcon's cockpit instead would fail to account for many of these curves and probably be too short. Besides, all UCS' make the occasional compromise and necessary abstraction in order to work and this one is a legitimate design choice given what brick resources are available verses the nature of the original source material. Short of a specialized cockpit piece like 7191's then I doubt a perfect solution is out there! So blame the limitations of the brick instead 'cause the B-Wing's cockpit was always gonna be a tough nut to crack in Lego!! 5. The price of Lego! Good lordie people! Why go on about it? Price vs. # of bricks has long been shown to be a misleading measure of a sets worth. Weight and other various costs of production obviously affect the value of these consumables. If you truly think Lego tends to be regularly and grossly overpriced then you may need to rethink your hobby! Let's face it, it ain't gonna get cheaper folks and our musings on price fluctuations of Lego over time are rarely 'informed' or for that matter amount to much 'illumination' on the subject. If you want the B-Wing and you think it's $50 too expansive now then consider the likelihood of it costing twice as much in five years time! You could of course risk waiting for a sale but either way just buy two sets and sell the second in five years so as your hobby costs you little to nothing in the medium term. Try making Lego work for you instead and please spare the forum of endless price complaints! 6. As for negativity on Eurobricks well there is plenty of it here and it's old news. Criticism should be a tool used responsibly and reasonably otherwise, well, you lend yourself to reasonable and responsible criticism! Don't bother being defensive about it just consider your posts from more angles in future. It's O.K. not to like something, even better if you can express why, but put it in context regarding your own bias or general perceptions of your hobby. After all it will make for a richer forum... Now I do have one criticism regarding the set (which is reasonable) and this is based on its functionality as a display model- It looks to me as though you cannot place the B-Wing on the stand with its S-Foils in a closed position! What a shame! It looks awesome with its wings in either position... Perhaps we'll need to come up with a second stand to account for the design oversight! Overall on first impressions I'd call this set a return to form for Lego and its UCS vehicles. (10221 was a very mixed up creature and didn't sit well in the stomach after digestion)!! Here here, I'm hardcore UCS all the way and people will complain no matter what kind of set TLG release. (first world problems) Quote
Fuppylodders Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Saving quoted text scrolling My initial impressions of the B-Wing are positive. As a stickler for accuracy (abstracted by the brick of course) and with a preference for 'modelling' rather than 'play features' and 'minifigs' then this set ticks all the boxes for me ( and I'd suggest most UCS buffs out there for which this set targets). Well done Lego!! .............................................................................................................. ......... ...... but either way just buy two sets and sell the second in five years so as your hobby costs you little to nothing in the medium term. Try making Lego work for you instead and please spare the forum of endless price complaints! Don't bother being defensive about it just consider your posts from more angles in future. It's O.K. not to like something, even better if you can express why, but put it in context regarding your own bias or general perceptions of your hobby. After all it will make for a richer forum... Overall on first impressions I'd call this set a return to form for Lego and its UCS vehicles. (10221 was a very mixed up creature and didn't sit well in the stomach after digestion)!! Why such a compelling statement It's weird. Nothing changes on the model itself at all, and yet it is my perception that is changed from someone's words... Edited July 10, 2012 by Fuppylodders Quote
Lyichir Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Lego obviously isn't using only brick count to set the price (at least not very consistently). The paradox is that if they had used hundreds more tiny plates (instead of larger ones) to construct the core of the wings to get to a brick count of around 2000, we would have gotten the same exact looking model, but being way more unstable but at a "better" price. A lot of factors are part of setting the price (and what Lego thinks they can possible get for it is certainly a factor here), and price per brick is IMO not giving a clear picture of value of the product and design costs/productions costs/brick value/license fees etc. Anyway, I'm getting this set. If I thought it was poorly designed, I wouldn't care if it was dirt cheap per brick, I wouldn't buy it I'm assuming you mean "better" as in a better price per piece, rather than the model itself being cheaper. Because small bricks and plates actually would cost more relative to their size than larger parts. A good exercise is to stack three 1x2 plates and weigh them against a single 1x2 brick. Even though the plates themselves are smaller, the mass of plastic used in them is greater relative to their size, and thus a model using many smaller parts where a few larger parts would suffice will end up costing more to produce. Personally, I'm a big fan of the new B-Wing. I don't really intend to get it, since it's been a long time since I collected LEGO Star Wars, but I can appreciate it for being a fantastic model using some excellent building techniques. I too was a bit surprised that no minifigures were included, but looking at the cockpit interior it does look a bit too large for minifig scale. But with or without minifigures, it's still an amazing set. Quote
NoteWorthington Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Hey, I just thought it looked weird. If you held the model at that angle and the cockpit was supposed to rotate freely, it wouldn't look like that. Like in the two system-scale versions, the ship is basically at this angle, but the cockpit isn't: [snip] Like I said before, it doesn't matter, but it stood out to me and I explained why. They are actually at very different angles. Edited July 10, 2012 by Brickdoctor Please don't quote large images from recent posts. Thanks. Quote
Combee Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I'm assuming you mean "better" as in a better price per piece, rather than the model itself being cheaper. Because small bricks and plates actually would cost more relative to their size than larger parts. A good exercise is to stack three 1x2 plates and weigh them against a single 1x2 brick. Even though the plates themselves are smaller, the mass of plastic used in them is greater relative to their size, and thus a model using many smaller parts where a few larger parts would suffice will end up costing more to produce. That's partially true, another factor to consider (and one that we don't really have much information on) is how many cavities are in each mold, i.e. how many parts are produced per cycle. For example, lets say they can produce 4 small 1x2 plates in the same amount of time that it takes them to make a single 1x2 brick (obviously I'm making numbers up). In this situation it may be cheaper for them to make 1x2 plates vs. 1x2 bricks. Thus, another contributing factor is the rate at which they can produce components. Quote
jasbury Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Hey, I just thought it looked weird. If you held the model at that angle and the cockpit was supposed to rotate freely, it wouldn't look like that. Like in the two system-scale versions, the ship is basically at this angle, but the cockpit isn't: Like I said before, it doesn't matter, but it stood out to me and I explained why. Wow, I didn't realize how in-accurate the last two B-wings looked in comparison to the new one until I saw these pics! I now have new appreciation for the size and detail packed into the new one Might have to buy the new B-wing after all! As always, thanks for the awesome HR pics, Grogall! The box-art looks okay. Despite the fact that there is no gravity in space, the cockpit angling does look a bit akward Cheers, -Jasbury Edited July 10, 2012 by Iron Mac Please don't quote images Quote
DFOL Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 They are actually at very different angles. The system scaled fighters may be in a slightly different angle compared to each other on the box art, but in both cases the cockpit seems to be gravitated towards the bottom of the box. Which is exactly the point Clone O'Patra was trying to make in relation to the box art of the UCS B-Wing. And yes, we know there is no up or down in space, so really the whole concept of a rotating cockpit seems a bit silly considering. But since the B-Wing features one (and it does look cool), it might as well be rotating according to the viewpoint of the viewer. Quote
cavegod Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 The box artist was probably going for the look of this scene that was never filmed for Jedi Quote
Brickadeer Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Hmmm...anyone who can say how the size of this B-Wing relates to the size of the new X-Wing? Quote
Da Expert On Anything SWs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Hmmm...anyone who can say how the size of this B-Wing relates to the size of the new X-Wing? According to the new size of the B- wing, the X- wing should have been a bit larger, thankfully they included mini figs in that set and didn't try to do a larger scale model though! Quote
cavegod Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 10227 is about 2-3 studs shorter than my moc was and about the same width ways. Quote
Super Brick Collector Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Anyone know what exclusive sets they'll have at comic con this year? Quote
Faefrost Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Anyone know what exclusive sets they'll have at comic con this year? You mean give aways? Word is two DC Superhero's. Shazam and Bizarro. Nothing about any Star Wars exclusives. Quote
Super Brick Collector Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 You mean give aways? Word is two DC Superhero's. Shazam and Bizarro. Nothing about any Star Wars exclusives. Dang, that's kind of disappointment no star wars giveaway. Maybe it's a secret set of figure they giving away that know one has heard of yet. Quote
Aeroeza Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Second impressions of the B-Wing are more than a little positive! I've had a chance to view the high res Lego images of 10227, compare them to my own shots of the studio model as well as the old dubious blue prints available online, a Snap Model Kit and the Kenner toy I have stashed in my attic and I have to say... Holy *#$@! This UCS is beautiful. If you are a UCS fan and you don't like this set then you need your head examined. End of story!! Well not quite. As usual I've a lot more to say... As for inaccuracies, (apart from, at first glance, the slightly jarring look of the cockpit), I'm thinking the slopped bricks which reach out from the far end of the main body of the ship and attempt to integrate the cockpit housing simply look too prominent. A little modding here might be called for. Oddly the few studs visible in this area make the fuselage under the cockpit look a little messy, especially when considering the fairly smooth finish to the remainder of the model. Certainly the odd plate can fix this if you aren't a fan of studs! Having closely studied an avalanche of available images and other MOCS in conjunction with my 'attic treasury' I can calmly say I have little issue with the use of the JSF cockpit piece. It works well for the chosen scale and has grown on me as I've considered the alternatives. 'Brick-built' might have worked better in some ways and from some angles but not from many others. More importantly the smooth look of the final cockpit matches the use of rounded bricks throughout the build and such consistency is important to the designer in me. It reflects the source material both in spirit and in look and is a choice of brick I can understand and respect. Short of a new brick element for the B-Wing then there is no easy solution here. But what I can unreservedly say with confidence about the JSF Cockpit element is it's great unique print. Let's face it, there hasn't been a printed cockpit piece for a UCS since 2006 (and then only for the TIEs)! As for other brick elements? Well Henrik has simply 'gone to town' by using a vast array of Lego bricks which our resident talented MOCers could only dream of having access to. Admittedly 'Brick purists' might be a bit appalled by the use of many exotic pieces but I'm pleased to say I don't fall into this category. At least you can say to them that no new element has been specially designed for 10227 and that it only took full advantage of the whole wealth of bricks TLG has manufactured over the last 50 years or so! Hmm, well regardless the end result is exciting to explore in the high res images and should prove a real treat to employ when building this monster... ...and it's big! At 66 cm wide, 38 cm in height and 43 cm on it's stand then this set will sit rather competitively next to the UCS shuttle and that's no mean feat. The two should look stunning together. Make no mistake that this is a sexy display model... But! I reckon there was a bit of a missed opportunity here for something a little different. We all know the typical Star Wars Lego ship is coloured light and dark grey! Well the unlit, ungraded and uncomposited studio model is closer to a grey/white with light blue trim as well as dark and light grey finishes to the detailing. Perhaps the B-Wing's blue trim could have been better served though using a different brick colour to dark bluish grey- I'd have certainly welcomed the change. Of course talk of colour schemes and printed pieces can't leave unsaid the elephant in the room i.e. our endless gripe about stickers. Let's face it they won't go away and no doubt many of you refuse to use them (like myself). What we'll miss out on here is a couple of big orange dots. I can live with that especially as they are meant to be 'republic red'! Perhaps this colour change is a deliberate aesthetic choice encouraged by an overall shift in hue and tone for the Lego ship when compared to the studio model? After all deep red looks a little stark when compared to the softer orange glow on the light blue grey Lego bricks... The build as demonstrated in the Lego video is modular and unashamedly takes full advantage of new building techniques which make far less a meal of issues we've all had to struggle with in the past. The result is a completely mirrored ship which if you were a bit of a party pooper could claim was a boring thing to do. My response to that would be to encourage you to share the fruits of your labor with the ones you love (just so long as you get to build the cockpit and all the funky, cool gun bits by yourself of course). What's nice about the model is that there is no side left begging for detail or looking unfinished. The only UCS I can think of which comes close to that in my mind is 10129 (that Snowspeeder really rocks)! The display stand is minimalist and rather elegant compared to some of the clunky ones from the past. Again, rounded elements are used in keeping with the 'look' of the ship but I'm really disappointed that it can't be displayed on the stand with its S-Foils in a closed position. Lego's promo blurp claiming 'realistic wing configurations for landing and flight' become a bit redundant if all the thing's gonna do is fly on its stand showing only one wing position! Mind you we have to expect a bit of hyperbole from the Lego marketing department. They obviously get scared when trying to release a Lego product which does... Nothing! Come on, a 'rotating, self-levelling cockpit'... so what! I'm glad it rotates (silly if it didn't) but the promo video suggests this vaunted gravity activated doobie-wack does only what it should do i.e. allow you to rotate it for display purposes. You sense a bit of defensiveness in good 'ol Henrik when having to justify that his model isn't minifig scaled or for that matter able to fire blinding bolts of super-heated plasma and charged ion particles from it's weaponry. Is it just possible that lots of kids and some noisy minifig and system set collectors just don't get what a classic UCS set is and so TLG feels compelled to explain itself? I say to you Henrik 'Halleluiah'! Be proud of breaking the chains of tyranny brought on by the elusive , misleading 'minifig scale' and the ever wicked, wicked ways of 'system' simplicity! Be proud that for the sake of accuracy and purity of build you have answered the dangerous, ever critical call of the perfectionist and constructed a scale lego model built for display not play! Be proud of the absence of Flick-fire missiles, Princess Leia's office desk and Jabba the Hutt's curling tongs! And above all be proud that you have created a classic UCS ship which will long be remembered as one of the bloody good ones, being built with excitement, appreciation and thanks by UCS fans everywhere !!! Amen (Whoops, got a bit religious there. The Church of UCS is calling...) Quote
Brickus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 You have made a pretty hard argument to beat Aeroeza, and I totally agreed with you from the start, this is a lovely model, and I'll be buying it day one. Also has everyone forgotten other UCS sets such as Obi-Wan's JSF, Darth Vader's Tie, Snowspeeder, and Tie Interceptor, what do they have in common? No minifigs. Quote
Mr Man Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Also has everyone forgotten other UCS sets such as Obi-Wan's JSF, Darth Vader's Tie, Snowspeeder, and Tie Interceptor, what do they have in common? No minifigs. The only UCS with minifigs have been the MF, and the Shuttle (oh and the SSD), but they where more or less Minifig Scale, most of the other UCS (JSF, B-Wing etc) look close to but not enough for figs to e included. Quote
Ceroknight Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 The only UCS with minifigs have been the MF, and the Shuttle (oh and the SSD), but they where more or less Minifig Scale, most of the other UCS (JSF, B-Wing etc) look close to but not enough for figs to e included. You forgot the one that actually needed a minifigure, the UCS R2-D2! I don't mind the trend where they give you minifigures, but traditionally there's no minifigures. Quote
cavegod Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 If people are that bothered then just buy one of these Quote
Aeroeza Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 ...has everyone forgotten other UCS sets such as Obi-Wan's JSF, Darth Vader's Tie, Snowspeeder, and Tie Interceptor, what do they have in common? No minifigs. ... most of the other UCS (JSF, B-Wing etc) look close to but not enough for figs to e included. I don't mind the trend where they give you minifigures, but traditionally there's no minifigures. If people are that bothered then just buy one of these... There seems to be an assumption amongst commentries buzzing around Lego sites that given 10179 and 10212 were near as nuts to scale with minifigures then other UCS releases like 10227 are somehow lacking if they aren't! I find this thinking bizarre and rather unrealistic given the complexities and issues involved when designing scale models in Lego. It's more by luck than foresight that there exists the right Lego elements for a particular Star Wars ship to be correctly sized for figures. This is why system sets are all over the place for scale purposes and why they shouldn't cross streams (like 10221 did) when it comes to traditional vehicle releases for the Ultimate Collectors Series... Remember Minifig scale is around 1:44 whereas this B-Wing is something more akin to 1:26 (thanks GroudonMan on FBTB for that estimate) so there's no way you could get as spectacular a model as this one if you had to make it just right for the little Lego guys. It's a sizable trade off in accuracy and compelling detail, defeating the purpose of beautiful display pieces, if you insist TLG release sets only in a particular scale. Although I applaud the success of 10179 and 10212 to think you could apply the same principles to just any ship and call it a classic UCS is just plain brick building naivety! ...now whether or not 10227 should have had a little Ten Numb B-Wing pilot hanging out on its display stand is another issue. I couldn't care less but can see why others might love this added 'collectabiliy'. Quote
Legoroni Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 FBTB says Lego will reveal a Rancor Pit set at SDCC. Link: http://www.fbtb.net/2012/07/11/lego-announces-sdcc-2012-plans/ Quote
Sam892 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 FBTB says Lego will reveal a Rancor Pit set at SDCC. Link: http://www.fbtb.net/2012/07/11/lego-announces-sdcc-2012-plans/ Can't wait to see what the set looks like. I'm guessing it connects to the bottom of the palace set. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.