LEGO Star Wars 2023 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[omegabadbatch]

29 minutes ago, SCREDEYE said:

Theyre exactly the same. Im staring at the regular and specialist 501st and theres zero difference 

im staring 212 trooper regular 501 and I swear that 212 clone have bigger helmet

mandrproductions see that too
link time: 6:15

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by omegabadbatch

[w219]

Helmet with holes is taller.

[Agent Kallus]

2 hours ago, omegabadbatch said:

im staring 212 trooper regular 501 and I swear that 212 clone have bigger helmet

Any difference is negligible imo. 

[Fulcrumfan91]

2 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

Any difference is negligible imo. 

Yeah I agree. Really don't see the problem with the helmets lol I have my old clones and the new ones together in the AT-TE and it rules

[Pedilego]

Sure, many (most) people don't see a problem with the 212th helmets. Lego is a hobby for most. It doesn't have to be perfect. That's a perfectly valid opinion to have.

But, as humans, we're designed to have variances in our personalities & temperaments. Negligible to you may be non-negotiable to somebody else. These kinds of things are 'built into our programming' for a purpose: People that worked for Steve Jobs thought he was demanding, unreasonable, and the 'natural course' of industry progression was "good enough"; now we all benefit from his standards. Not thinking the 212th helmets are good enough is valid, too.

It's funny seeing people argue as if one or the other is correct when it's both. It's not up to TLG standards/capabilities but it's up to the person if what we have is good enough or not.
 

Personally, I don't like the helmet holes but I don't mind them too much, either. It's not a problem on the Gunner, for example. It is a problem for me on the 212th due to how it's affected the print. I'm only using the newer 212th Clones for building an Umbara macro binocular unit. I'd buy a lot more if they made a version without the holes (assuming it'd have the correct print).

[Retro Brick Reviews]

13 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

Personally, I don't like the helmet holes but I don't mind them too much, either. It's not a problem on the Gunner, for example. It is a problem for me on the 212th due to how it's affected the print. I'm only using the newer 212th Clones for building an Umbara macro binocular unit. I'd buy a lot more if they made a version without the holes (assuming it'd have the correct print).

The thing is, there's no evidence whatsoever that the new helmet is responsible for the inaccurate printing. The mold is virtually identical to the 2014 version aside from the holes themselves, the printing error is much more likely to be general mediocrity on LEGO's end that has nothing to do with the new helmet, especially since the standard 501st print is exactly the same between both designs.

[omegabadbatch]

1 hour ago, Retro Brick Reviews said:

The thing is, there's no evidence whatsoever that the new helmet is responsible for the inaccurate printing. The mold is virtually identical to the 2014 version aside from the holes themselves, the printing error is much more likely to be general mediocrity on LEGO's end that has nothing to do with the new helmet, especially since the standard 501st print is exactly the same between both designs.

you are right. Its not beacuse of helmet. Its beacuse deisgner wanted to design 212 helmet faster? easier?

He put blue stripe from 501 helmet on 212 helmet then he cut stripe on bottom and changed colour to orange

[ArrowBricks]

2 hours ago, Retro Brick Reviews said:

The thing is, there's no evidence whatsoever that the new helmet is responsible for the inaccurate printing. The mold is virtually identical to the 2014 version aside from the holes themselves, the printing error is much more likely to be general mediocrity on LEGO's end that has nothing to do with the new helmet, especially since the standard 501st print is exactly the same between both designs.

Well said. 
 

I keep trying to convince myself to purchase the AT-TE at £93, but the 212th inaccurate print compounded by false advertising by Lego showing the accurate print makes me feel almost guilty in giving the company my money. 

I can live with the Spider Droid mistake and the helmet holes too but what I can’t accept is this. 

It is a really shame. 
 

The Commander Fox minifigure seemingly has inaccurate print too, less so, but still…

So close to a golden age. So. Close. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by ArrowBricks

[omegabadbatch]

18 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

Well said. 
 

I keep trying to convince myself to purchase the AT-TE at £93, but the 212th inaccurate print compounded by false advertising by Lego showing the accurate print makes me feel almost guilty in giving the company my money. 

I can live with the Spider Droid mistake and the helmet holes too but what I can’t accept is this. 

It is a really shame. 
 

The Commander Fox minifigure seemingly has inaccurate print too, less so, but still…

So close to a golden age. So. Close. 

you dont want cody?

[Fulcrumfan91]

11 minutes ago, omegabadbatch said:

you dont want cody?

Lol not all of us want all the clones

[ArrowBricks]

21 minutes ago, omegabadbatch said:

you dont want cody?

Well yes, but I’m not forking out that sort of money for him. 

[Flawless Cowboy]

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

[omegabadbatch]

would be cool if at te was 5xvip with death star promo

[PsychoBuilder]

1 hour ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

Uhhh...I wouldn't expect that as a pattern, certainly not yet. AT-AT made sense given it was arguably the most prominent missing set, and the Razor Crest was something of a wild card. Just going back a little bit, 2020 had the Cantina, 2019 had a Star Destroyer, 2018 had Cloud City, and 2017 had the Falcon. It is actually true that there was a Cantina in 2018, a Star Destroyer in 2017, and Falcon in 2015, but I think it far more likely that these are just sets in demand (plus that SD was an FO one). Also, we have not had a Venator since 2009, so I think it's a bit risky to place any bets on that. 

[QuiggoldsPegLeg]

2 hours ago, omegabadbatch said:

you dont want cody?

I want a Cody, but not the one they made, and I’m certainly am not spending $180 on a set for one minifigure I’m sort of interested in. I’m sure there will be a set with a Cody design I like at some point over the next few decades.

[ARC2149Nova]

1 hour ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

At first I was like "Great, another $650 set or higher", but after thinking about it, it could be achieved for about $300-$400.

But, we'll probably see a starfighter first, tbh.

[KevinMD]

4 hours ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

I’ll take that bet. 

[Flawless Cowboy]

3 hours ago, Brickroll said:

Uhhh...I wouldn't expect that as a pattern, certainly not yet. AT-AT made sense given it was arguably the most prominent missing set, and the Razor Crest was something of a wild card. Just going back a little bit, 2020 had the Cantina, 2019 had a Star Destroyer, 2018 had Cloud City, and 2017 had the Falcon. It is actually true that there was a Cantina in 2018, a Star Destroyer in 2017, and Falcon in 2015, but I think it far more likely that these are just sets in demand (plus that SD was an FO one). Also, we have not had a Venator since 2009, so I think it's a bit risky to place any bets on that. 

I mean in the sense that the AT-TE is a likely UCS set to begin with, and releasing a playset version first right before the UCS version makes sense

3 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

At first I was like "Great, another $650 set or higher", but after thinking about it, it could be achieved for about $300-$400.

But, we'll probably see a starfighter first, tbh.

Looking at the in-universe scaling of the AT-AT vs AT-TE, I can’t imagine Lego stretching the price beyond $400. It’s really not that big.

[Gontron]

5 hours ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

I wouldn't expect it, but then again a $650 Venator was a pipedream two years ago. 

[Flawless Cowboy]

25 minutes ago, Gontron said:

I wouldn't expect it, but then again a $650 Venator was a pipedream two years ago. 

Precisely why I think it’s likely. Anything clone related is on the table 

[YourLocalB2]

1 hour ago, Gontron said:

I wouldn't expect it, but then again a $650 Venator was a pipedream two years ago. 

A $650 Venator was a pipe dream less than a month ago

[Mandalorianknight]

7 hours ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

Not that an AT-TE is entirely unlikely, but this is a perfect example of patterns being coincidences. There are more system set slots open than UCS set slots, so generally speaking, if something's popular enough to get a UCS model made of it, it's most likely going to have been on shelves as a system set in the past few years. You can't seriously tell me that when lego was designing the Razor Crest they were planning on a UCS one coming. 

23 minutes ago, YourLocalB2 said:

A $650 Venator was a pipe dream less than a month ago

A $650 Venator still feels like a pipe dream if I'm being honest. It'll be cool to see, but I'm shocked they didn't go for a cheaper choice like an ETA-2 or ARC-170 first. The gunship must have sold like hotcakes for them to be THIS confident in prequel UCS.

2 hours ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

Looking at the in-universe scaling of the AT-AT vs AT-TE, I can’t imagine Lego stretching the price beyond $400. It’s really not that big.

The AT-TE is, depending on which source you use for the AT-AT, either only 3-4 meters shorter in length, or 2 meters LONGER. (AT-TE at 22 meters, and AT-AT at either 20 or 25.9, according to wookiepedia. Both AT-AT lengths being for the main version, too, not the larger one from Rebels and Fallen Order.). Now, it is significantly shorter in height, but also has more legs and is bulkier, and of course most of the part count of the AT-AT is going into the top section, not the middle of the legs. $850 like the AT-AT would be a stretch, but something like $650 seems like about where it'd be at lego's current pricing.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Mandalorianknight

[Flawless Cowboy]

8 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

You can't seriously tell me that when lego was designing the Razor Crest they were planning on a UCS one coming.

I can, actually. Big ticket UCS sets take well over a year or two to conceptualize, design, and distribute.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Flawless Cowboy

[QuiggoldsPegLeg]

I can’t see Lego making a minifig scale AT-TE so soon after the playscale one, because I can’t see it being that much bigger. The minifig scale Brickvault one is 2133 pieces, which is around the same as the current X-Wing, and a lot lower than the Gunship or Cantina.
https://www.brickvault.toys/products/at-te-minfig-scale

And that’s not even considering the fact that Brickvault MOCs usually use way more pieces than an official Lego set of the same size would.

[1340cc]

8 hours ago, Flawless Cowboy said:

I’m convinced that we’re following the same playset first/UCS later pattern with the razor crest and AT-AT and we’re getting a UCS AT-TE within the next two years. The play set version is cool, but it just makes me want a proper minifig scale version. 

It's one of the most popular and iconic prequel era vehicles so I would expect Lego to make a UCS version eventually, but I don't expect it to happen until after the current playscale one has been discontinued. Unlike the Razor Crest, Falcon and AT-AT the playscale version isn't significantly undersized for minifig scale so if they had both playscale and minifig scale UCS available at the same time the 2 sets would be competing with each other.

 

16 minutes ago, QuiggoldsPegLeg said:

And that’s not even considering the fact that Brickvault MOCs usually use way more pieces than an official Lego set of the same size would.

I'm not sure if that's still the case judging by some of the more recent sets. RichboyJhae's AT-AT on Brickvault has about 600 less pieces than the official version, while it does lack the leg articulation the 2 models are pretty much the same size and both have full interiors. The official UCS Razor Crest also has significantly more pieces than the fan designed versions though admittedly is also bigger.