Finally got hold of a 8129 here in Sweden and did some mods to it. Most obvious are the printed discs and reducing the "hump", it´s also 1 brick taller. Still have a few details I would like to fix but I ran out of parts.

More pictures:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t29/mordatre/lego2/at2.jpg

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t29/mordatre/lego2/at1.jpg

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t29/mordatre/lego2/at4.jpg

I have to agree...that's one ugly-looking AT-AT!

IMO, it looks really 'chunky and clunky'. There is something that is just...'off'...about it.

It may have some cool build elements and new figure elements but, all in all, I am NOT impressed.

Even better than comparing it to other LEGO models.

Edited October 1, 201014 yr by fallenangel327

Having the '10 version I would say the only glaring weakness is the rear end. It's a little short and the slope is too steep. Other then that it's great, and I do appreciate the head being very close to the movie.

If you don't have one the '10 version is good, but if you have the '03 I would still be satisfied with it, not worth getting a replacement.

TLG keeps coming back to the same design. There's too many (similar) AT-ATs floating around already. When are they gonna come out with a true minifig scale UCS AT-AT that would knock the socks off everything else that's been released.

The box opens using the flap tearing system, IMO the worst. It tears and creases the sides!

Imagine my surprise when I went to purchase the set at a local TRU today and it wasn't the flap tearing kind. I wonder if Lego changed the boxes for later production runs or if the difference is a North American and European thing.

IMO the set looks much better in person than it does in pictures. When this set first came out I was extremely disappointed, but now that I have it built, it's pretty sweet. The figures are great as well, although I also found it disappointing that the new General Veers and Hoth Rebel troopers in this set just had switched heads from the Imperial Officer and Hoth Rebels in the battlepacks. Really, the only new figures in this set were Luke (and his awesome new helmet design) and Han.

Imagine my surprise when I went to purchase the set at a local TRU today and it wasn't the flap tearing kind. I wonder if Lego changed the boxes for later production runs or if the difference is a North American and European thing.

Interesting. I've never seen that happen before.

Imagine my surprise when I went to purchase the set at a local TRU today and it wasn't the flap tearing kind. I wonder if Lego changed the boxes for later production runs or if the difference is a North American and European thing.

There certainly are differences between US and European boxes. I experienced exactly the same with two CATDs - one European, one US - and they had completely different boxes (though I can't remember which one had the flaps ;)).

The AT-AT is kinda disappointing. Not as well designed as the 2004 one and to little space in the interior. But more figs and a rather low price just save it.

Nice review, this set is a must buy for me!

I'm planning to buy this as its now £79.99 instead of £99.99

I got exactly £80 for Christmas and I have fallen in love with this, I have always wanted an AT-AT.

This AT-AT is what got my into SW legos. I snatched it up when it showed up at TRU.

couple months ago I lucked out and got the 2003 4483 ATAT for a really low price.

There are aspects of both that i like.

I feel that the 2010 model is sturdier. The 2003 is ridiculously fragile. I dont like how the head side panels lock into place.

But the 2003 is bigger and looks better IMHO.

I got this today, Love it to pieces (pardon the pun) 10/10

I don't know about this set. When I first saw this set I thought that it was ugly and would not get it, besides I already have the motorized one. Your review however, made the set look cool. In comparison, it would appear that this AT-AT is more accurately proportioned than the motorized one and is more realistic. However, I really dislike Luke's Whip it doesn't work (looks wise). I may just have to pass on this set though. So many other good ones (that I don't have), plus I have got to save money for Padme (really the Sith Infiltrator, but it's really all about Padme, she's long overdue!)

Great review. Since i do not have an AT-AT yet I guess this is my chance.

But, I would like to know what tue differences are between all the released walkers. Can someone make a comparison between the 3 AT-ATs?

The first at-at has a similar shape to the new one, with printed joint covers like the 2007 one.

The 2007 one has the nicest look, and was by far the most movie accurate. It was also motorized and had nice legs.

Mine is on it's way (or should be, I hope) and by the end of the week I'll have it.

Can't wait!

Fantastic review, BTW!

The 2007 one has the nicest look, and was by far the most movie accurate. It was also motorized and had nice legs.

Wait, what? You can't possibly be serious.

Wait, what? You can't possibly be serious.

Well... lookswise, maybe not, but functionally, it's certainly closer to a "real" AT-AT than almost all other LEGO AT-ATs, by virtue of the fact it, you know, actually walks. By this standard, the only other official LEGO AT-AT that even comes close is the one from the Mindstorms Dark Side Developer Kit.

Edited November 25, 201113 yr by Blondie-Wan

So why is 8129 'The most contraversial set'? It's been a while but i remember it being relatively well received?

So why is 8129 'The most contraversial set'? It's been a while but i remember it being relatively well received?

It was, it's just that a handful of us accuracy freaks were nitpicking it and the minifigure selection was less than appealing to some. See here.

Edited November 25, 201113 yr by fallenangel309

Can you pose this set in the down position?

http://www.techrepublic.com/photos/a-galaxy-far-far-away-comes-to-brazil/192470?seq=6

Can you pose this set in the down position?

http://www.techrepublic.com/photos/a-galaxy-far-far-away-comes-to-brazil/192470?seq=6

I'm thinking the legs would come pretty close, but the head doesn't have that much range of motion to rest flat on the ground.

Is it possible to attach the head/cockpit section of 10178 to 8129's body?

I ask this question because I think the cockpit of 8129 is its most unforgivable feature, specifically the fact it only has room for one pilot.

Also what is the likelihood of a true UCS model without the motorization in the future?

Edited July 21, 201212 yr by Another Brick In The Wall

Is it possible to attach the head/cockpit section of 10178 to 8129's body?

Also what is the likelihood of a true UCS model without the motorization in the future?

There never was a motorised UCS AT-AT, only a system one.

As for swapping the heads, I imaging so, however minor modding may be needed to fit them properly.

There never was a motorised UCS AT-AT, only a system one.

As for swapping the heads, I imaging so, however minor modding may be needed to fit them properly.

Thanks for your response Mr Man. Wasn't implying that 10178 was UCS but my wording may have been confusing.

Here in New Zealand, this was one darn expensive set....not great value for money and lacking the imposing factor you'd expect with such an iconic and devastating machine. Brother bought this one, I skipped it and got the Falcon that had just been released a year or so ago. After comparing them, very happy with my decision.

Great review and pictures! While the set itself is by no means bad, compared to the previous version (4483), the proportions and overall look of the vehicle just seem off. Obviously this one is more accurate than the walking 10178 set, but the lack of decals on the joint pieces and smaller armor plating leave much to be desired.

On the other hand, the selection of minifigs is much nicer than 4483, even if they don't make any sense (Han Solo, C-3PO??). They could have included more accessories though such as a speeder to justify the higher price tag.