Future Star Wars Sets

[BigJoe]

Time will tell. The fact that it's SW should be enough. No need to re-use iconic vehicles from the past to promote the movie of the future. Personally I would like to see new ships and vehicles. I never imagined another SW trilogy in my lifetime and soon it'll be a reality.

As long as the SW sets aren't past sets than I'm happy

[Inzane]

yet I never noticed the Falcon in PT until I just googled it. It must be the most ridiculous cameo ever,

Hard to even call it a cameo... more like an easter egg. I don't consider it's "appearance" in the PT as anything close to the signficance of R2 & 3POs presence, for example. Now THERE are a couple icons that have to be in the next trilogy.

On the topic of the droids, I wonder how possible/practical a UCS-sculture type set of C3PO would be. When you consider past sets like 3450 and 3723, not to mention the existing UCS R2-D2 set, it wouldn't be unprecedented. The color scheme creates an interesting dilemma though. Do they do the majority of the model in a gold/pearl gold color?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Inzane

[Faefrost]

Wow, I considered myself a SW fan, yet I never noticed the Falcon in PT until I just googled it. It must be the most ridiculous cameo ever, they could have at least thrown a full close-up for a moment if they wanted to warm OT fans' hearts, not throw some random flying object landing at Senate building in a corner of one frame...

There are a few other equally bad blink and you miss them cameo's. Dash Rendar's Outrider zips over Mos Espa, Quinlan Vos is in the background drinking in a tavern, etc.

[Robianco]

As much as it's appearance in the PT was fleeting the Falcon is probably the most important ship in the SW universe.

It's been owned by 2 of the main characters and has a history longer than that... I think it will definitely be part of the next trilogy and possibly Rebels.

I have no problem with what TLG decide to put out and whether they decide to modify and release things in a 6 or 7 year cycle... as long as the releases are done well.

I'm assuming the people that would be most against a Falcon UCS release are those that like the resale value of their current one staying where it is.

[Spyderlord]

As much as it's appearance in the PT was fleeting the Falcon is probably the most important ship in the SW universe.

It's been owned by 2 of the main characters and has a history longer than that... I think it will definitely be part of the next trilogy and possibly Rebels.

I have no problem with what TLG decide to put out and whether they decide to modify and release things in a 6 or 7 year cycle... as long as the releases are done well.

I'm assuming the people that would be most against a Falcon UCS release are those that like the resale value of their current one staying where it is.

Yes, agree . I do mind when they rehash endlessly (Jedi Starfighter in trillion colors, Jedi Interceptor, Hoth base in million sizes/shapes/names etc) but 6-7 years cycle is completely natural thing to do, if for nothing else than for the advancement of technology. Compare a SW set from 1999 and one from the last two years: laughable, right?

For UCS I would perhaps allow a longer 10-year cycle to abide by the (former) acronym, but under no circumstances should MF be allowed to reach such ridiculous prices on the after-market.

[Lobot]

I really want a new UCS Falcon, but considering the exponential increase in RRPs during the last few years anything close to the original size is going to be very expensive! However, I can't imagine that it would be anything other than a massive success, especially if it was a limited edition. If 20,000 41999s can sell in a couple of days I'm sure that 50,000 Falcons at £5-600 wouldn't be a problem!

I'm quietly hoping that the rumoured UCS AT-AT and Slave 1 are correct, I genuinely don't care what they'll cost, provided that they don't cut corners on the size or part count.

[Spyderlord]

I'm quietly hoping that the rumoured UCS AT-AT and Slave 1 are correct, I genuinely don't care what they'll cost, provided that they don't cut corners on the size or part count.

For Slave 1, your hopes will probably come true. But judging by the brickset forum, you are in for the Sandcrawler UCS in May and an AT-AT but System scale in the summer wave...

[nrg]

The Sandcrawler is not so sure , it could be a Could City . Only time will tell . NOW SUMMER RUMOR LIST GET LEAKED !!!!

[Lobot]

For Slave 1, your hopes will probably come true. But judging by the brickset forum, you are in for the Sandcrawler UCS in May and an AT-AT but System scale in the summer wave...

As long as it's not a re-hash of the 8129 that's ok, what an awful set! To do it justice it needs to be in the 1000 - 1200 parts range at system scale.

[Spyderlord]

As long as it's not a re-hash of the 8129 that's ok, what an awful set! To do it justice it needs to be in the 1000 - 1200 parts range at system scale.

Completely agree, that set was a disaster. No wonder it got recalled in no-time. They just need to stick to the approved recipe aka. 10178 minus the motor part and everything will be fine... (until we finally get a full 4k+ UCS of AT-AT in the following years that is)

Edited December 10, 2013 by Spyderlord

[BigJoe]

I think Lego should try making the Anti-Troopers created by the rebellious members of the komino factories. i know its EU but it would still be sweet if they made a set with Anti-troopers Vs. Stormtroopers

[Inzane]

A UCS AT-AT or Slave 1 would be cool, but I hope they could keep the size and price range reasonable (somewhere in the B-wing/X-wing range). And if that means keeping minifigs out of the set to meet that, fine with me.

The massive (retail) price increase for the UCS SSD over the ISD is incomprehensible other than for the inclusion of five (unnecessary, for UCS) minifigs.

[Sir_Basil_Ashton]

A UCS AT-AT would be a no-brainer purchase for me. The only thing that would make me hesitate is price.

[legolandia]

I would definitely purchase a UCS AT-AT. As for the sandcrawler, I do hope that Lego does not bother. Who on earth would want another sandcrawler UCS when there are so many more important vehicles that could be made?

[Merc4hire95]

I would actually want an UCS Tie advanced. I would settle for a AT-AT retail set, if we do get one in the summer, but I have my doubts, unless we get another ROTS and Empire Strikes Back mix like the one we got in 2010, which I would love.

[Inzane]

I would actually want an UCS Tie advanced.

Umm.... 10175?

If we're due for another TIE in the UCS lineup I think they should do the standard TIE (an odd omission up until now) or a TIE Bomber first.

[Spyderlord]

A UCS AT-AT or Slave 1 would be cool, but I hope they could keep the size and price range reasonable (somewhere in the B-wing/X-wing range). And if that means keeping minifigs out of the set to meet that, fine with me.

The massive (retail) price increase for the UCS SSD over the ISD is incomprehensible other than for the inclusion of five (unnecessary, for UCS) minifigs.

Well, I am quite happy with Executor such as it is, also with Imperial Shuttle (two purchases still on a must-buy list, unemployment period struck at the bad moment, but I never complain about the price for such jewels generally, I take more issue with the pricing of Duel on Geonosis-kind of sets ). Minifigs definitely add to the charm of the sets, though I do agree that that bridge structure on Executor is completely unnecessary.

I would definitely purchase a UCS AT-AT. As for the sandcrawler, I do hope that Lego does not bother. Who on earth would want another sandcrawler UCS when there are so many more important vehicles that could be made?

Oh, how I feel your pain, but it appears we are a minority here. When I asked the same question a Jawas-loving brigade jumped me over But I see a sense in a continuation of RoTJ line they've been (rather successfully financially-speaking apparently) throwing at us...

So, I guess we should be patient and hope that TLG would eventually hear our (far) cry for an UCS AT-AT.

[Inzane]

Well, I am quite happy with Executor such as it is....

(... still on a must-buy list,....but I never complain about the price for such jewels generally,)....Minifigs definitely add to the charm of the sets,

though I do agree that that bridge structure on Executor is completely unnecessary.

Wouldn't you have rather had that extra ~$100 in your pocket? That's the approximate price difference between the two large UCS capital ships.

TLG, if they wanted to, probably could've come up with other clever ways to get us those few minifigs. (And really it's just Bossk that was the unique one there, isn't it?)

[Spyderlord]

Wouldn't you have rather had that extra ~$100 in your pocket? That's the approximate price difference between the two large UCS capital ships.

TLG, if they wanted to, probably could've come up with other clever ways to get us those few minifigs. (And really it's just Bossk that was the unique one there, isn't it?)

The approximate price difference between "Level 1" and "Level 2" UCS' is ~150-200€ or $. At least was for the last 3,4 years. It was Dengar, Bossk was also there in Slave I, and it's always nice to have exclusive figs. The question about 100$ is "am I getting a good bang for my buck" if you prefer, and Executor delivers on that one (bigtime, I'd add despite some apparent flaws like flat bottom).

So if they make an AT-AT or MF or huge Cloud City playset that are slightly over 400+ mark, it would take some saving for, but many fans would eventually buy it. Mind you, Death Star is still 419.99€ in Europe. It's a 2008 set and people still buy it!

[Inzane]

The approximate price difference between "Level 1" and "Level 2" UCS' is ~150-200€ or $. At least was for the last 3,4 years.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying. I've never heard of this level 1 and level 2 distinction before, and even so I don't see the 10030 ISD and 10221 SSD being classified any differently from each other. They are roughly the same piece count, and accomplish much the same impact in terms of display. The only thing of significant difference is the inclusion of 5 minifigs, and I don't see how that's "good value" for our $100. ($100 delta in USD & CDN, not sure what your price difference was accross the pond).

[Lobot]

TLG, if they wanted to, probably could've come up with other clever ways to get us those few minifigs. (And really it's just Bossk that was the unique one there, isn't it?)

Bossk also appears in the old Slave 1 set (8097); the new versions of IG-88 & Dengar are only available in the SSD. I quite like the set, apart from the bridge which is totally pointless.

If there's a continued focus on ROTJ next year, they could still have a new AT-AT.....it would compliment a dish and landing platform very nicely!

[Spyderlord]

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying. I've never heard of this level 1 and level 2 distinction before, and even so I don't see the 10030 ISD and 10221 SSD being classified any differently from each other. They are roughly the same piece count, and accomplish much the same impact in terms of display. The only thing of significant difference is the inclusion of 5 minifigs, and I don't see how that's "good value" for our $100. ($100 delta in USD & CDN, not sure what your price difference was accross the pond).

ISD was released more than 10 years ago, it doesn't make for a good comparison example of new TLG pricing startegy. In the last 3,4 years, TLG was marketing 2 types of UCS (large sense), one that is between 200-250 mark (X-Wing, B-Wing, R2-D2, Ewok Village, Imperial Shuttle, Republic Dropship with AT-OT) with the brick count of around 1000-2000 (slightly more for some) and flagship products that are closer to 400 mark (Death Star and SSD) with brick count range of 3000-4000. That's what I referred to speaking of "levels", it's just how I perceive their marketing strategy, by no means an "official" or fan-made distinction .

Bossk also appears in the old Slave 1 set (8097); the new versions of IG-88 & Dengar are only available in the SSD. I quite like the set, apart from the bridge which is totally pointless.

If there's a continued focus on ROTJ next year, they could still have a new AT-AT.....it would compliment a dish and landing platform very nicely!

Oh man, if only they released that set with well-marked baseplates... (talk about the pedestal for your Imperial Shuttle ). But, I think we can keep dreaming, that platform and a dish would make for a huge set already without complementing it with an AT-AT (in a size that we'd like).

[Robianco]

For me, the Red Five UCS is a good example of putting out a very good product at a decent enough time frame away form the earlier release.

I can understand the frustrations of those that collected the older version and are maybe still waiting for a UCS TIE to accompany it... just to have a newer X-Wing come along before it.

I think mini figures should be included if things are roughly mini fig scale.. otherwise it seems a little pointless... hence no pilots for the B-Wing or Red Five. I seem to remember seeing the Snowspeeder was actually closer to action figure scale.

Once the Cuusoo Sandcrawler didn't happen I didn't think they'd be looking to put that out just yet... especially when there's things like Slave 1, AT-AT, Cloud City, TIE Fighter etc that haven't been done in this way before. Any of those OT items would be great for me... and hell for my missus... and my bank account. But I'd get them. The Death Star has never really interested me... the B-Wing has never been my favourite ship design (it's probably my least favourite in the rebel fleet) but the Shuttle looked lovely.

The mini figures on the SSD looked pointless as they're huge in the scale of things... I also thought the actually design of that was quite dull... the only interesting thing for me was the propulsion on the underside... the scaling was tiny (as it needed to be as the Executor is so huge) so it looked like just lots of very small parts in different greys trying to create a texture rather than a particularly good ship build. For me the standard TIE Fighter that was released is a far better looking build... but that's just my opinion.

I feel a tad cheated though that there isn't a 4-Lom and Zuckuss to complete the Bounty Hunter pack from the bridge of the Executor.

On the subject of product cycles... I must admit I'm glad I don't collect the PT stuff... those continual Jedi Starfighters would just annoy me!! And I'm not sure we ever need another non-film element of Hoth to try and make up some kind of Echo base or outpost.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Robianco

[korpen4444]

Lego has highly disregarded the many key pilots of the rebel alliance. With the micro fighters i want to see:

A snow speeder with wes janson

A Y-wing with Davish.

I also want a Yavin 4 base: Rebel Guard( regular rebel with spear, 2) Jan Dodonna, Leia, 2 Astromechs, A y-wing pilot (blue helmet deco) Tiree, 2 rebel ground crewmen.

Lego also needs to update the death star with all new figures, and add the new gunners to the line up.

Edited December 12, 2013 by korpen4444

[BigJoe]

Lego has highly disregarded the many key pilots of the rebel alliance. With the micro fighters i want to see:

A snow speeder with wes janson

A Y-wing with Davish.

I also want a Yavin 4 base: Rebel Guard( regular rebel with spear, 2) Jan Dodonna, Leia, 2 Astromechs, A y-wing pilot (blue helmet deco) Tiree, 2 rebel ground crewmen.

Just saying but the crewmen are basically the rebel technicians that come with some of the fighters. Sure we could get guards but it's so easy just to stick a spear on a rebel "scout" trooper and call him a guard

For me, the Red Five UCS is a good example of putting out a very good product at a decent enough time frame away form the earlier release.

I can understand the frustrations of those that collected the older version and are maybe still waiting for a UCS TIE to accompany it... just to have a newer X-Wing come along before it.

I think mini figures should be included if things are roughly mini fig scale.. otherwise it seems a little pointless... hence no pilots for the B-Wing or Red Five. I seem to remember seeing the Snowspeeder was actually closer to action figure scale.

Once the Cuusoo Sandcrawler didn't happen I didn't think they'd be looking to put that out just yet... especially when there's things like Slave 1, AT-AT, Cloud City, TIE Fighter etc that haven't been done in this way before. Any of those OT items would be great for me... and hell for my missus... and my bank account. But I'd get them. The Death Star has never really interested me... the B-Wing has never been my favourite ship design (it's probably my least favourite in the rebel fleet) but the Shuttle looked lovely.

The mini figures on the SSD looked pointless as they're huge in the scale of things... I also thought the actually design of that was quite dull... the only interesting thing for me was the propulsion on the underside... the scaling was tiny (as it needed to be as the Executor is so huge) so it looked like just lots of very small parts in different greys trying to create a texture rather than a particularly good ship build. For me the standard TIE Fighter that was released is a far better looking build... but that's just my opinion.

I feel a tad cheated though that there isn't a 4-Lom and Zuckuss to complete the Bounty Hunter pack from the bridge of the Executor.

On the subject of product cycles... I must admit I'm glad I don't collect the PT stuff... those continual Jedi Starfighters would just annoy me!! And I'm not sure we ever need another non-film element of Hoth to try and make up some kind of Echo base or outpost.

right. anymore Jedi fighter and non-movie hoth sets would in my view ruin it all