North Lego Star Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) Well, overall 6212 was a good set,it came with great minifigs and a good x-wing but my major concern about the new x-wing is the fact that its the same design as 6212,it has less minifigs and its at a higher price. Who knows,these are prelims and we'll just have to wait for better pictures. Any word on the Y-wing or B-wing? Edited September 11, 2011 by North Lego Star Quote
JurassicBrick Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Well, it looks to me like this X-wing redesign corrects a bunch of 6212's problems (and for the record, I didn't really have a problem with that set, though it does look pretty dated compared to more recent models). Just based off this prelim, the engines and cannons seem to be more accurate and the wings close tighter. The nose length seems to be shortened, which was badly needed. Ironically, the detail about 6212 that bugged me was the nose cone, and I can't tell from this image if that has been changed or not. This whole redesign reminds me of the ARC-170, which only changed slightly in terms of outward appearance, but had some more significant changes that weren't visible. And while I'd have loved if it came with Wedge, that probably would be too similar to 6212. I'm glad to see the Jedi Interceptor has been adapted to fit an R2 unit on the wing. It seems a little bulky compared to the previous version, but I'll wait until I see a sharper picture. Quote
North Lego Star Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Did anyone notice 3 things about the x-wing... 1.R2 can only fit in the x-wing if he's turned sideways 2.The cockpit and the pieces on the side of the engines on the x-wing are new 3.The wings are closed farther apart than 6212 Again these are perlims so lets not come to any conclussions yet. What about that hoth lego game, any news on that? Quote
Ritz Brick Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Did anyone notice 3 things about the x-wing... 1.R2 can only fit in the x-wing if he's turned sideways 2.The cockpit and the pieces on the side of the engines on the x-wing are new 3.The wings are closed farther apart than 6212 Again these are perlims so lets not come to any conclussions yet. What about that hoth lego game, any news on that? All these have been mentioned several times... and can we all move past the fact that 6212 had some accuracy issues. It was around for 5 years, something must have been done right.... Quote
White Cat Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Never owned the 7283 but I don't think the Interceptor is too bulky, especially for my taste. After more than 10 years for dark ages and I think lego nowsaday has more pieces than before and probably bigger. But bulky, no I don't think so. I think it's just only get bigger. Quote
Fallenangel Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 You are remarkably butthurt over 6212. I think you're in the wrong hobby. On the contrary, LEGO X-wings are what got me into this hobby in the first place. Why else would my first five attempts at MOCing it have looked like crap? I was extremely inexperienced and ignorant of MOCing standards at the time. But enough about me. Back to new sets... @White Cat: I agree that 9494 doesn't really look all that bulky. I think some of the stuff they stuck under the wings (e. g. flick-fire missiles) is going to add some unnecessary 'lumpiness' to the set, though. But the picture is so preliminary at this point that one can't really be sure. Quote
Zzz Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 @White Cat: I agree that 9494 doesn't really look all that bulky. I think some of the stuff they stuck under the wings (e. g. flick-fire missiles) is going to add some unnecessary 'lumpiness' to the set, though. But the picture is so preliminary at this point that one can't really be sure. The other day I was just praising this set and finally getting an updated Obi-Wan and Anakin from E3, but afterwards I realised that the Interceptor is just way too big. So I have to admit, I understand the problem with it. I guess a real one should be 5,5 meter, if I remember correctly. And assuming that a minifig is 2m tall, let's say (I know thats big but it's make things easier here) it'd still be easily 8m long... I know that this seems a bit nerdy, but I really don't like too big sets. I have a bigger problem with the Landspeeder being so big than the Tantive IV being ridicolously small, for some strange reason. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 The other day I was just praising this set and finally getting an updated Obi-Wan and Anakin from E3, but afterwards I realised that the Interceptor is just way too big. So I have to admit, I understand the problem with it. I guess a real one should be 5,5 meter, if I remember correctly. And assuming that a minifig is 2m tall, let's say (I know thats big but it's make things easier here) it'd still be easily 8m long... I know that this seems a bit nerdy, but I really don't like too big sets. I have a bigger problem with the Landspeeder being so big than the Tantive IV being ridicolously small, for some strange reason. Scaling is always a big issue; you're not the only one who likes to calculate the proper size. Remember, though, the proportions of a LEGO minifig are different. It's only fair to calculate the width, not the length/height, when you think the model is too big. (though I can't check to see how close to the correct scale it is right myself, so I have no idea if it would still be too big) Quote
Fallenangel Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) The other day I was just praising this set and finally getting an updated Obi-Wan and Anakin from E3, but afterwards I realised that the Interceptor is just way too big. So I have to admit, I understand the problem with it. I guess a real one should be 5,5 meter, if I remember correctly. And assuming that a minifig is 2m tall, let's say (I know thats big but it's make things easier here) it'd still be easily 8m long... I know that this seems a bit nerdy, but I really don't like too big sets. I have a bigger problem with the Landspeeder being so big than the Tantive IV being ridicolously small, for some strange reason. I don't know about the studio model, but the canon length of the Eta-2 is 5.47m and the scaling of the Revell kit suggests a length of 4.88m. The size of the cockpit bulb relative to a minifigure should be a dead giveaway that the current rendition is oversized, though. I actually tried making one to scale some time back, and ended up with this: I also find it bothersome that LEGO renditions the X-34, T-47, BARC, Delta-7, and speeder bikes in general are so large, even if overscale builds are the only option for a presentable final product. So in short, you are not alone... Edited September 11, 2011 by fallenangel309 Quote
StoutFiles Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) I don't know about the studio model, but the canon length of the Eta-2 is 5.47m and the scaling of the Revell kit suggests a length of 4.88m. The size of the cockpit bulb relative to a minifigure should be a dead giveaway that the current rendition is oversized, though. Where does the bottom of the droid go when in that ship? Edited September 11, 2011 by StoutFiles Quote
Fallenangel Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Where does the bottom of the droid go when in that ship? I'm guessing it's sticking out of the bottom of the ship but was edited out of the scene. Sometimes the fighter magically fits the droid's entire body, sometimes not. Quote
Ceroknight Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Looking at that picture, it seems an astromech can fit into it Quote
lightningtiger Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Looking at that picture, it seems an astromech can fit into it Remember it's the Lucas magic ! He can do what he likes and change things half way through ! I guess the size of the new Jedi fighter is more to do with to be able to be brick-built and not <insert that tiresome argument> pieces to give less of a build. Quote
mutley777 Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 I would be quite happy if the did they droid the same way as the old fighter, just the head on the ship. Then give us the rest of the droid for when he is not. Quote
lightningtiger Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Perhaps there is a play feature that ejects R2 ? Plus more flick fire missiles ? Quote
Fives Posted September 11, 2011 Posted September 11, 2011 Perhaps there is a play feature that ejects R2 ? Plus more flick fire missiles ? The R2 ejector sounds like it would be cool, and yay more flick fires Quote
Piranha Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 I would be quite happy if the did they droid the same way as the old fighter, just the head on the ship. Then give us the rest of the droid for when he is not. Yes I like this idea awell like with horses in other themes where we get a saddle and 1x2 brick and 1x2 plate for when they are not saddled. Although how many of us ever have the ship displayed w/o and R2 unit? However the other side of me wants the whole extra droid body just cause more value for the money but primarily irritating is when we just get heads of new droids and not their bodies most notably R4-G9 Quote
Orukaia Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) Why are people complaining that a good set is not getting a substantial redesign? 4502/6212 has been around for over half the span of the license and it still sells well. It doesn't make sense for The LEGO Group to change the design (even if it is hideous) because kids love it and AFOLs love it! Some have even gone so far as to say "the LEGO designers did a great job getting the look of the ship right" and that it is "very well designed and very sleek". It would only make sense that The LEGO Group would retain such a popular design! What's the problem? Are there actually people on this forum who agree with me that the set is ugly? If so, why haven't you said so? I know this is absolutely the worst time to bitch about toys, but Orukaia just isn't making sense. I'm not saying it wasn't popular, and I already said I'm complaining selfishly (read: I wanted a redesign for ME, not for the kids and AFOLs who "love it".) I know it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't redesign it, I was just saying I wish they had. How does that not make sense? EDIT: also, before anybody freaks out about it, no I DON'T expect lego to design a set for me personally, obviously. It was just a phrase Edited September 12, 2011 by Orukaia Quote
Fallenangel Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 I'm not saying it wasn't popular, and I already said I'm complaining selfishly (read: I wanted a redesign for ME, not for the kids and AFOLs who "love it".) I know it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't redesign it, I was just saying I wish they had. How does that not make sense? EDIT: also, before anybody freaks out about it, no I DON'T expect lego to design a set for me personally, obviously. It was just a phrase Hmm, seems like rash posting on my part then... in hindsight my statement was directed less at you personally than the people on this thread who were wishing the new X-wing was more different. It's apparent that your stance on 6212 is similar to mine, but then somebody brought in the question of the target audience, which skewed things. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 I would be quite happy if the did they droid the same way as the old fighter, just the head on the ship. Then give us the rest of the droid for when he is not. Agreed. They already did it in the Imperial V-wing, anyways. Quote
Churchill Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 I don't want to wade too deeply into the edited vs not argument about the astromechs in the Eta-2s, but when I look at that last movie still, the legs on the unit look angled backwards, roughly at the same angle as when the third leg is out for locomotion. Depending on the thickness of the wing close to the body, could that account for the units fitting in the wing? Quote
Orukaia Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 Hmm, seems like rash posting on my part then... in hindsight my statement was directed less at you personally than the people on this thread who were wishing the new X-wing was more different. It's apparent that your stance on 6212 is similar to mine, but then somebody brought in the question of the target audience, which skewed things. Yeah, I see where you're coming from. For the record; In my honest, personal, unrelated-to-target-audience opinion, I dislike 6212 (as well as the new one). I think its accuracy and functionality are sub-par, and colors/shapes are way off. But the masses seem to quite enjoy the design, so a redesign is not warranted. (sadly.) And I realize that. So I wasn't EXPECTING a totally new x-wing, just crossing my fingers. AAAAND that's my stance on the matter. Quote
Fallenangel Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I see where you're coming from. For the record; In my honest, personal, unrelated-to-target-audience opinion, I dislike 6212 (as well as the new one). I think its accuracy and functionality are sub-par, and colors/shapes are way off. But the masses seem to quite enjoy the design, so a redesign is not warranted. (sadly.) And I realize that. So I wasn't EXPECTING a totally new x-wing, just crossing my fingers. AAAAND that's my stance on the matter. My friend, will you be? @Churchill: It does appear that the legs of the droid are in fact tilted back, but I doubt that would make enough of a difference in height for it to fit into whatever shallow crevice exists there - just look at Hasbro's solution. EDIT: After taking another look at the Exhibition photo, I think it may also be possible that the droid's body is simply obscured by the fighter's wing in that shot. Edited September 21, 2011 by fallenangel309 Quote
Orukaia Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) My friend, will you be? Haha of course Also, in regards to the "astromech droid shouldn't fit in that ship" matter.... I wonder if, being the complex mechanical entities that they are, the droids' main 'body' section can compress, or telescope in a way so they fit more compact into ships..... O.o hahaha Edited September 12, 2011 by Orukaia Quote
Special K Posted September 12, 2011 Posted September 12, 2011 Hmm, alright sets. Happy to see more OT than clone wars. I'm gonna get Droid Escape and that's all. Just a query: is there a reason these pictures are always so blurry? Is it not possible to get slightly clearer ones? Anyway, yeah 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.