LEGO Star Wars 2022 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[Mandalorianknight]

 

8 hours ago, blujay563 said:

I don't think it's been completely discredited yet but I will admit it's really unlikely especially with the minifig selection but it would be appropriate to release it around an atte and gunship tbf. I guess we'll find out for sure whenever the $50 set is revealed

Dude, there are absolutely 0 concrete rumors of a gunship. The only reason people have been saying that is because promobricks says there's an AT-TE in development (They don't even know if it's coming this wave), and then speculated that IF an at-te is coming in the summer, there must also be a gunship. They have no evidence the gunship is coming aside from their knowledge that the AT-TE is somewhere in development. Not to mention that even if we knew the at-te was coming this wave, and even if there was a gunship coming alongside it, the tx-130 isn't in attack of the clones, and neither are the figures it was supposed to come with, so the correlation would be like saying that because lego did a TIE fighter and lambda in early 2021, a TIE crawler must be coming.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

3 hours ago, QuiggoldsPegLeg said:

Lucasfilm doesn’t make decisions of what content they’re creating based on toy sales. Making the toys sell is the job of the marketing team and toy companies, and completely separate from the storytellers at Lucasfilm. Not to mention the fact that by the time they get the statistics on how a toy sells, the next part of a project is already 2 to 3 years deep into development (or more when it comes to animation).

This is categorically untrue, LMAO. Merchandisability is a huge factor in deciding what content they create. Din Djarin's new ship doesn't have a bubble canopy just for Baby Yoda because it makes any kind of sense in the story, it's because Baby Yoda is the most marketable character Star Wars has had in decades and they want the merch to show him off. The direct box office income from the movies (or the subscription fees from Disney+, for the shows) only accounts for a couple percent of the total revenue associated with the Star Wars brand; Disney cares vastly more about the merchandising. Obviously they aren't shaping their decisions around the sales of a single LEGO set, but in aggregate, yes, they absolutely will build shows around what they think will sell toys. For an even sharper example, look at the Ewoks cartoon from the 80s--that show had less than zero narrative reason to exist and really didn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of Star Wars, but they sold a lot of Ewok dolls, so that's what we got.

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

3 hours ago, QuiggoldsPegLeg said:

Lucasfilm doesn’t make decisions of what content they’re creating based on toy sales. Making the toys sell is the job of the marketing team and toy companies, and completely separate from the storytellers at Lucasfilm. Not to mention the fact that by the time they get the statistics on how a toy sells, the next part of a project is already 2 to 3 years deep into development (or more when it comes to animation).

back in '82 George "dollar-eyes" Lucas was changing weird reptiles into Ewoks cause of toys. The Millenium Falcon in EPIV was just a junk ship. Han boasting about it was only meant to show him as a lying scoundrel. It was a junk ship with some tricks, nothing more. After it's popularity in EPV it was suddenly a really special ship and center of everyones attention.

And every Baby Yoda scene is insanely defined by: "let's have a kid or this funny women/droid share a cute scene with him that doesn't have anything to do with the plot or any character ark".

I don't try to be cynical here- this is what Star Wars has always been: a toy commercial. At certain times it was very high quality at certain times - in my personal opinion - not so much. Even I admit that certain scenes with Baby Yoda manage to be a toy commercial but at the same time be absolutely about the plot and doesn't take you out of the universe. But often it's just brainless advertisement because Disney doesn't just run on views. It is a toy empire.

 

...but if you ever were in show business /or probably many other types of business) you will be aware of the situation, when higher ups and marketing people approach you and kindly or not so kindly ask you to put this and that scene in the show. Many times there are reshoots because higher ups think this will sell. Product placement and many other words come to mind. It's not like art in such a company is strictly seperated from profits..

[QuiggoldsPegLeg]

5 minutes ago, Kim-Kwang-Seok said:

back in '82 George "dollar-eyes" Lucas was changing weird reptiles into Ewoks cause of toys. The Millenium Falcon in EPIV was just a junk ship. Han boasting about it was only meant to show him as a lying scoundrel. It was a junk ship with some tricks, nothing more. After it's popularity in EPV it was suddenly a really special ship and center of everyones attention.

And every Baby Yoda scene is insanely defined by: "let's have a kid or this funny women/droid share a cute scene with him that doesn't have anything to do with the plot or any character ark".

I don't try to be cynical here- this is what Star Wars has always been: a toy commercial. At certain times it was very high quality at certain times - in my personal opinion - not so much. Even I admit that certain scenes with Baby Yoda manage to be a toy commercial but at the same time be absolutely about the plot and doesn't take you out of the universe. But often it's just brainless advertisement because Disney doesn't just run on views. It is a toy empire.

 

...but if you ever were in show business /or probably many other types of business) you will be aware of the situation, when higher ups and marketing people approach you and kindly or not so kindly ask you to put this and that scene in the show. Many times there are reshoots because higher ups think this will sell. Product placement and many other words come to mind. It's not like art in such a company is strictly seperated from profits..

 

17 minutes ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

This is categorically untrue, LMAO. Merchandisability is a huge factor in deciding what content they create. Din Djarin's new ship doesn't have a bubble canopy just for Baby Yoda because it makes any kind of sense in the story, it's because Baby Yoda is the most marketable character Star Wars has had in decades and they want the merch to show him off. The direct box office income from the movies (or the subscription fees from Disney+, for the shows) only accounts for a couple percent of the total revenue associated with the Star Wars brand; Disney cares vastly more about the merchandising. Obviously they aren't shaping their decisions around the sales of a single LEGO set, but in aggregate, yes, they absolutely will build shows around what they think will sell toys. For an even sharper example, look at the Ewoks cartoon from the 80s--that show had less than zero narrative reason to exist and really didn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of Star Wars, but they sold a lot of Ewok dolls, so that's what we got.

I’m not talking about Star Wars in the 80s, and I’m not talking about other media companies. I’m talking about the current state of Star Wars. The Lucasfilm Story Group and writers like Jon Favreau aren’t making their story decisions based on marketing. If they cared about that they wouldn’t have done nearly enough to prevent Grogu from leaking and missing out on a bunch of merch sales in the first few months after the premiere of the Mandalorian. Obviously money plays a factor in everything, but once the creators get the green-light on a project, they aren’t going to remove that project because they can’t make enough toys for the media. And like I said before, sales of a specific toy have absolutely no effect on anything due to the fact that they’re so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and are only available years after decisions have already been made. 

[Redroe]

17 minutes ago, QuiggoldsPegLeg said:

And like I said before, sales of a specific toy have absolutely no effect on anything due to the fact that they’re so insignificant in the grand scheme of things

I did say I recognise my 90 quid isn't going to break Disney's bank.  

[jdubbs]

51 minutes ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

The direct box office income from the movies (or the subscription fees from Disney+, for the shows) only accounts for a couple percent of the total revenue associated with the Star Wars brand

Sorry, but, no.

The movies grossed on average a billion dollars each theatrically... about half of which went to the studio. This does not include DVD, Blu-ray, VOD, rentals and purchases on iTunes, licensed runs on HBO/Netflix/FX/etc. Those will easily exceed the box office run of each movie over time, with a much higher percentage going to the studio. Disney+ brings in $5 billion a year (and growing) though obviously Star Wars amounts for only a portion of the content there.

Star Wars merchandise sales are estimated to be $2-3B per year... and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes all the DVD, etc. revenue, which is really just the movies/shows earning more money for themselves, and can't really be counted as toys or whatever.

And, that $2-3B of merchandise revenue does not all go to Disney... far from it... the majority of it goes to the licensee (Hasbro, LEGO, etc.). Disney takes a percentage of those sales in the form of licensing fees... this has been estimated at 18% I think? (Hasbro, probably the largest SW licensee, had $1.2B total revenue (not profit) from all licensed product last year... of which only a portion is Star Wars, and only a portion of that goes to Disney). 

So... most likely, the revenue earned from merch is roughly equal to the revenue earned directly from the media itself (theatrical, DVD, Disney+, etc.)... perhaps a bit more.

[MKJoshA]

And we are really off topic here. There's a thread for film and other Star Wars discussion. You can find it in my signature. Let's get back on topic please.

[blujay563]

5 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

 

Dude, there are absolutely 0 concrete rumors of a gunship. The only reason people have been saying that is because promobricks says there's an AT-TE in development (They don't even know if it's coming this wave), and then speculated that IF an at-te is coming in the summer, there must also be a gunship. They have no evidence the gunship is coming aside from their knowledge that the AT-TE is somewhere in development. Not to mention that even if we knew the at-te was coming this wave, and even if there was a gunship coming alongside it, the tx-130 isn't in attack of the clones, and neither are the figures it was supposed to come with, so the correlation would be like saying that because lego did a TIE fighter and lambda in early 2021, a TIE crawler must be coming.

Ok but every republic atte released has had a gunship released alongside it has it not? That's not terrible speculation to see the pattern continuing. The gunship may not be solidly rumored but the $140 price point this summer could work although the piece count does make it unlikely they could have just made it smaller or utilized updated pieces or techniques to make a gunship for that price. Also the atte isn't confirmed for this wave but releasing it for aotc anniversary would make sense along with the $100 price point this summer working good for it. Finally even if a republic fighter tank isn't an aotc set it is a republic vehicle is it not? Releasing it alongside an atte and gunship is more than appropriate not to mention the original 2008 fighter tank released alongside an atte and gunship making your analogy sound really dumb. Look i get that this might all be wrong and I'm just on the hopium but there is a small chance it could happen.

[Mandalorianknight]

1 hour ago, blujay563 said:

Ok but every republic atte released has had a gunship released alongside it has it not? That's not terrible speculation to see the pattern continuing. The gunship may not be solidly rumored but the $140 price point this summer could work although the piece count does make it unlikely they could have just made it smaller or utilized updated pieces or techniques to make a gunship for that price. Also the atte isn't confirmed for this wave but releasing it for aotc anniversary would make sense along with the $100 price point this summer working good for it. Finally even if a republic fighter tank isn't an aotc set it is a republic vehicle is it not? Releasing it alongside an atte and gunship is more than appropriate not to mention the original 2008 fighter tank released alongside an atte and gunship making your analogy sound really dumb. Look i get that this might all be wrong and I'm just on the hopium but there is a small chance it could happen.

Technically the 2016 one, but I'll grant that it's not really the same. On the other hand, these "patterns" aren't really a thing. I remember last year everyone used the exact same logic for the MTT, and that didn't turn out well. Some others would be the standard, base OT x-wing (2006, 2012, 2018, 2021 breaks pattern), AT-AT (releasing roughly every 3.5 years and then having a 6 year gap between august 2014 and 2020), Vulture droid (appears packaged with a republic ship in 2005, 2007, 2009, and then doesn't show up until 2014, where it's by itself), ETA-2 (2012, 2014, 2016, none in 2018), and probably a lot more I'm missing. 

And I'm not sure that my analogy is "really dumb". As you say, they are certainly all republic vehicles. The TIE crawler, Lambda, and TIE fighter are all imperial vehicles, though, so the analogy seems pretty accurate. Not to mention that the whole "but it released in the same year as the gunship and AT-TE" is somewhat dampened by it's subsequent release in 2017, a year noticeably lacking of the other two vehicles. 

TLDR the evidence for a gunship based on an AT-TE being in development is weak, but the idea of a tx-130 coming with them this wave is downright ridiculous. 

[CodeNameGoldMember]

21 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Would you recommend it, then? I do want the throne but I'm trying not to spend too much on lego this year, and I'm definately getting the BD-1 and hypothetical AT-TE.

I definitely like it, but I don't know if I could say I love it. In all honesty, I typically buy all the sets no matter the price but I would say that $100 does seem a little excessive. The figures are fantastic (minus Boba Fett's helmet still not being recolored and I'm not sold on Fennac's hair). The build isn't complicated and in the end looks pretty good. If anyone is hesitant, I'd say wait for a sale and pick it up cheaper than MSRP, not really a must have day 1 set, but still a set worth having if that makes any sense.

Also, I'm not a fan of big box sets having push tabs to open but I guess isn't bad at all for any sealed collectors.

Edited February 21, 2022 by CodeNameGoldMember

[NoOneOfImportance]

At this point, I'm expecting no gunship, partly for marketing reasons as well. LEGO wants the UCS Gunship to sell, and it's only been out less than a year, and if they release a minifigure scale one, which people have been complaining that the UCS isn't, the sales for the big one will drop substantially, giving them less revenue on a project that was already a question of how well a prequel UCS will sell (not siding one way or the other, but they were partly testing waters with this set in some ways). It would make far more sense to sell the Gunship at minifigure scale in another year or so after the UCS has a bit more non-system-competitive set life. 

And for those about to say that the AT-AT and UCS AT-AT are released simultaneously, that's a different situation, as both are minifigure playable, just for different demographics, so neither hurts the sales of the other in the same way a system Gunship would definitely hurt sales of the UCS. 

[MaximillianRebo]

Are there any actual confirmed release, patterns by designers or others in the company? For all the 'Lego producers a system scale gunship every seven years' or 'this year is the 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary of Episode whatever so we should get a wave of...' speculation, it seems to be more often that not coincidental rather than by design that we get certain sets in certain years, and any correlation between set significance and release year is the exception rather than the rule.

[Kit Figsto]

11 minutes ago, MaximillianRebo said:

Are there any actual confirmed release, patterns by designers or others in the company? For all the 'Lego producers a system scale gunship every seven years' or 'this year is the 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary of Episode whatever so we should get a wave of...' speculation, it seems to be more often that not coincidental rather than by design that we get certain sets in certain years, and any correlation between set significance and release year is the exception rather than the rule.

Not exactly "confirmed" but the only real safe bet for a guaranteed release is that they do seem to do something for each decade of LSW sets.  In 2009, they had the silver Darth Vaders inserted in sets, plus a fan vote set (ended up being Home One), and a throwback box art.  In 2019, they had the anniversary edition minifigures and sets that were updated re-releases of older sets.  I would guess that in seven years, assuming LSW is still a thing, they'd do something special for it too.

 

1 hour ago, NoOneOfImportance said:

At this point, I'm expecting no gunship, partly for marketing reasons as well. LEGO wants the UCS Gunship to sell, and it's only been out less than a year, and if they release a minifigure scale one, which people have been complaining that the UCS isn't, the sales for the big one will drop substantially, giving them less revenue on a project that was already a question of how well a prequel UCS will sell (not siding one way or the other, but they were partly testing waters with this set in some ways). It would make far more sense to sell the Gunship at minifigure scale in another year or so after the UCS has a bit more non-system-competitive set life. 

And for those about to say that the AT-AT and UCS AT-AT are released simultaneously, that's a different situation, as both are minifigure playable, just for different demographics, so neither hurts the sales of the other in the same way a system Gunship would definitely hurt sales of the UCS. 

First off, I agree with your point that having two Gunships on shelves at the same time would likely cannibalize sales of the UCS one, but I do want to point out that by the time the summer wave hits, the UCS Gunship will have been out for a year.  While I have no idea what actual sales data is, it seems like almost every normal UCS release (basically anything that isn't the Falcon or Death Star) tends to stick around for roughly two years, give or take a couple of months.  If I had to guess, most of these sets probably sell more copies in the first year or so, because that's when most of the hype is.  Also, a UCS set is less of an impulse buy.  If you know you want a UCS set, you probably have that idea pretty early on (after it's been revealed, maybe seeing it in a store for the first time, reading some early reviews of it, et cetera), and the average UCS consumer (ie, someone with $200-350 to spend on a collectible toy/display piece) probably doesn't have to save up for it in the same way a kid might save up for, say, a $100 set - they probably will just buy it pretty early on.

This is all to say that most people who want the UCS Gunship have probably already purchased one.  If they had put out both a system and UCS model at the same time, I think that the UCS one would've done poorly, but I don't think the UCS sales would take as much of a hit if they wait a full year to put out the smaller one.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

1 hour ago, MaximillianRebo said:

Are there any actual confirmed release, patterns by designers or others in the company? For all the 'Lego producers a system scale gunship every seven years' or 'this year is the 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary of Episode whatever so we should get a wave of...' speculation, it seems to be more often that not coincidental rather than by design that we get certain sets in certain years, and any correlation between set significance and release year is the exception rather than the rule. 

No, there are no such patterns. I've posted this before, but the record for anniversary sets is:

TPM: 0 sets in 2009, 1 set in 2019
AotC: 0 sets in 2012
RotS: 0 sets in 2015
ANH: 2 sets in 2007, 1 set in 2017
ESB: 1 set in 2000, 5 sets in 2010, 2 sets in 2020
RotJ: 3 sets in 2003, 3 sets in 2013

That looks random. OT movies get about the same number of sets in anniversary years as they do in non-anniversary ones, and PT movies historically get nothing. ESB's 30th anniversary in 2010 coincided with a Hoth wave, but that should happen occasionally by chance; there's a cluster of sets around one movie or another almost every year, so if LEGO completely ignores the anniversaries a random distribution would have that happen to land on an anniversary roughly every tenth year, which is about what we see here. There's no pattern. I would invite everyone to bear in mind this xkcd cartoon about trying to make predictions based on historical trends.

[blujay563]

6 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Technically the 2016 one, but I'll grant that it's not really the same. On the other hand, these "patterns" aren't really a thing. I remember last year everyone used the exact same logic for the MTT, and that didn't turn out well. Some others would be the standard, base OT x-wing (2006, 2012, 2018, 2021 breaks pattern), AT-AT (releasing roughly every 3.5 years and then having a 6 year gap between august 2014 and 2020), Vulture droid (appears packaged with a republic ship in 2005, 2007, 2009, and then doesn't show up until 2014, where it's by itself), ETA-2 (2012, 2014, 2016, none in 2018), and probably a lot more I'm missing. 

And I'm not sure that my analogy is "really dumb". As you say, they are certainly all republic vehicles. The TIE crawler, Lambda, and TIE fighter are all imperial vehicles, though, so the analogy seems pretty accurate. Not to mention that the whole "but it released in the same year as the gunship and AT-TE" is somewhat dampened by it's subsequent release in 2017, a year noticeably lacking of the other two vehicles. 

TLDR the evidence for a gunship based on an AT-TE being in development is weak, but the idea of a tx-130 coming with them this wave is downright ridiculous. 

We'll see if they continue the pattern on an atte and gunship being released but out of all the patterns this is most likely one that will continue atleast this time to coincide with the anniversary and clone accesory pack to fill it up if Lego has any sense, which usually they don't but like I said hopium. Also the reason i called your analogy dumb is because first off the tie crawler has literally only ever appeared once in a lego set and barely appears in any recent media. The republic fighter tank has gotten some more coverage recently with battlefront 2 and a couple books. Yes 2017 means that everytime a republic fighter tank drops a gunship and atte aren't for sure gonna come with it but my point is 2008 shows it isn't ridiculous or impossible for that to happen like your analogy of a way more obscure star wars vehicle not seen in lego since 2007 getting released.

Edited February 21, 2022 by blujay563

[AD_Bricks]

2 hours ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

No, there are no such patterns. I've posted this before, but the record for anniversary sets is:

 TPM: 0 sets in 2009, 1 set in 2019
AotC: 0 sets in 2012
RotS: 0 sets in 2015
ANH: 2 sets in 2007, 1 set in 2017
ESB: 1 set in 2000, 5 sets in 2010, 2 sets in 2020
RotJ: 3 sets in 2003, 3 sets in 2013

Even though what I’m gonna say doesn’t really mean anything for or against this, I thought I’d mention that we got quite a few rots sets in 2014 rather than 2015 and some aotc sets in 2013 rather than 2012.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

9 minutes ago, AD_Bricks said:

Even though what I’m gonna say doesn’t really mean anything for or against this, I thought I’d mention that we got quite a few rots sets in 2014 rather than 2015 and some aotc sets in 2013 rather than 2012.

And of course the UCS Gunship in 2021 would've been perfect a year later. But you know what they say: close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.

[T21Typhoon]

What I don’t understand about the summer list (so far) is how only some of the set names actually confirmed at this point. Given that these sets will be entering production in a matter of months, why are sets like Obi-Wan’s Delta-7 a certainty, but the AT-TE and a hypothetical gunship are not? I can’t see the logic behind this.

The only reason I can think of is that some of these sets belong to the upcoming D+ Shows.

Edited February 21, 2022 by T21Typhoon

[ForgedInLego]

9 minutes ago, T21Typhoon said:

What I don’t understand about the summer list (so far) is how only some of the set names actually confirmed at this point. Given that these sets will be entering production in a matter of months, why are sets like Obi-Wan’s Delta-7 a certainty, but the AT-TE and a hypothetical gunship are not? I can’t see the logic behind this.

The only reason I can think of is that some of these sets belong to the upcoming D+ Shows.

If there is a gunship coming, I think its understandable that LEGO would want to keep it secret so as to not impact UCS Gunship sales as much as possible

 

At least with the last wave we knew that Din's N1 was going to be something from BOBF for a while; it wasn't just blank

[Willsy]

I feel like the Clone Command Station just lends to the idea of *some* Republic vehicle coming this year. Much like the Hoth Rebel Troopers tied in with the AT-ST, UCS AT-AT and Snowtrooper Battle Pack, I feel it has to compliment something, and that can't be the UCS Gunship and Obi-Wan's Delta-7 doesn't make much sense. I feel like the AT-TE is extremely likely as a result, but I doubt a minifigure scale gunship will come before next summer at the earliest with the UCS model on shelves still. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Willsy

[ArrowBricks]

49 minutes ago, Willsy said:

I feel like the Clone Command Station just lends to the idea of *some* Republic vehicle coming this year. Much like the Hoth Rebel Troopers tied in with the AT-ST, UCS AT-AT and Snowtrooper Battle Pack, I feel it has to compliment something, and that can't be the UCS Gunship and Obi-Wan's Delta-7 doesn't make much sense. I feel like the AT-TE is extremely likely as a result, but I doubt a minifigure scale gunship will come before next summer at the earliest with the UCS model on shelves still. 

Exactly this. Although, I think the command station will fit in the vehicle and I’m not sure the AT TE will have space, so could be a Gunship. But yes, Gunship next year imo. 

[PsychoBuilder]

This is extremely pedantic, but it should be noted that the first gunship and AT TE did not, in fact, come out in the same year—the gunship came in 2002, and the AT TE came out in 2003, so even though it’s close, that kind of is another count against the pattern.

[jdubbs]

3 hours ago, T21Typhoon said:

What I don’t understand about the summer list (so far) is how only some of the set names actually confirmed at this point. Given that these sets will be entering production in a matter of months, why are sets like Obi-Wan’s Delta-7 a certainty, but the AT-TE and a hypothetical gunship are not? I can’t see the logic behind this.

 The only reason I can think of is that some of these sets belong to the upcoming D+ Shows.

I'm not sure what there is to understand here... Promobricks got ahold of some set names but not others.... whoever their source is gave them specifics for some sets, and vague hints about others. This is how it works year in, year out. Some set names/prices/piece counts leak before others... either because they got entered into a Target or LEGO Store computer but others didn't, or because they were included in a retailer catalog but others weren't, or because they were seen by someone with access, but others weren't. Mostly this is down to timing of the releases, but even when it's not, it doesn't really mean anything... except when a set is a store exclusive (these typically don't leak until just before they are announced, if they leak at all).

Re: Disney+, yes, LEGO does try to maintain an air of secrecy around sets based on upcoming media, but these still inevitably leak well before they're intended to be announced, along with everything else... The two Boba sets were known (to some) months before they leaked publicly... they're based on a Disney+ show, and didn't have any greater secrecy associated with them than anything else.

Leaks trickle out. There's not really much rhyme or reason to it.

[Willsy]

Also I'm sure this has been brought up before but I'm actually rather surprised that Lego have never used this piece for the Darksaber:

BrickLink - Part 37341c : LEGO Minifigure, Weapon Sword Blade with Bar, Square Crossguard [Minifigure, Weapon] - BrickLink Reference Catalog

Sadly it's not been produced in black, because trying a silver version on a gunmetal grey hilt, it's a pretty good representation on the Darksaber barring the inaccurate colour. Surely Gideon's cruiser would have been a good time to use it, let alone Mando's N-1. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Willsy

[Mandalorianknight]

9 hours ago, blujay563 said:

We'll see if they continue the pattern on an atte and gunship being released but out of all the patterns this is most likely one that will continue atleast this time to coincide with the anniversary and clone accesory pack to fill it up if Lego has any sense, which usually they don't but like I said hopium. Also the reason i called your analogy dumb is because first off the tie crawler has literally only ever appeared once in a lego set and barely appears in any recent media. The republic fighter tank has gotten some more coverage recently with battlefront 2 and a couple books. Yes 2017 means that everytime a republic fighter tank drops a gunship and atte aren't for sure gonna come with it but my point is 2008 shows it isn't ridiculous or impossible for that to happen like your analogy of a way more obscure star wars vehicle not seen in lego since 2007 getting released.

This is gonna be my last post on the subject for awhile as this is getting pretty annoying to try and spell out, but I'm going to try one last time to get the point across. These patterns DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING to lego. As @Brickroll said, it's not even really a pattern, since the first releases of each ship weren't even in the same year. And as @Kdapt-Preacher concretely proves, anniversary patterns are completely non-existent. Promobricks says they have evidence that an AT-TE may be coming this wave, but there is NO evidence for a gunship whatsoever. Could it happen? Maybe, but there is NO evidence for it, it could just as easily be an MTT, or a Falcon, or a shuttle of some sort, or any of a myriad of sets that could fill out that price point. 

Since you really don't like my analogy, I'll try a different one. You say there's evidence for the fighter tank because when the AT-TE and gunship released in 2008, so did the fighter tank, and they are all republic vehicles. Ok. So this would mean sets that have the same odds as the fighter tank as releasing include:

anakin's delta-7, AT-AP, v-19 torrent, a mini juggarnaut, and the twilight, all of which, I would argue, are more or at least as well-known as the tx-130, since unlike that vehicle, they were all present in films or animated shows.
Furthermore, a prequel-era AT-TE also released in 2003 (no other republic vehicles that year though) and 2013. In 2013, there was a clone command center, which also appeared in 2022. Other republic vehicles in 2013 included: 

501st AT-RT, Z-95 headhunter, BARC speeder with sidecar, and mini republic frigate. Again, all of these are as or more well-known as the tx-130, having appeared in films or animated shows.

Do you get my point? There's no evidence for a gunship, but sure, it could happen. The TX-130, on the other hand, is nothing more than wishlisting.

3 hours ago, Willsy said:

I feel like the Clone Command Station just lends to the idea of *some* Republic vehicle coming this year. Much like the Hoth Rebel Troopers tied in with the AT-ST, UCS AT-AT and Snowtrooper Battle Pack, I feel it has to compliment something, and that can't be the UCS Gunship and Obi-Wan's Delta-7 doesn't make much sense. I feel like the AT-TE is extremely likely as a result, but I doubt a minifigure scale gunship will come before next summer at the earliest with the UCS model on shelves still. 

Completely agree, I think the AT-TE is likely for this summer, and that the gunship is not.