UCS Sets

[Concept]

Jens thought that it could become a very nice Lego set (and he was right :) ).

Yes there is no denying it is a very nice set.

[Anio]

Such as the 3x12 wedge plates for a 1.24 meter SSD!

Not really the 3x12 wings. ;)

You can make a much bigger SSD with these wings, but a much smaller too.

Whas is important on a wing is the angle. And whatever the size of your project, the angles do not change. ;)

So, on 10221 (and on my Executor), the size can be defined by some elements in the greebs (it is nearly obvious that the bridge has to be done with slope, 1x3 plates, and 1x1 round plates ; I did the bridge that way, and TLG too).

Another thing that can define the size of the SSD is the SNOT greebs on the side. Given that there is a structure, you've got techniks bricks (triangular shape). The height of this structure (basically 1 brick + 2 plates) gives you the distance between the upper and the bottom wings : a little bit more than 1cm.

If you make a 90cm long SSD, 1cm between will be too much. On the contrary, if you make it twice bigger, 1cm is not enough any more (too thin).

Engines are also a key part on most of the ships.

edit : windscreens too, of course.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Anio

[Aeroeza]

Not really the 3x12 wings. ;)

...

Cool! Oops! I had a 'brain fart'. Of course it's engines 'n other stuff! Thanks for the clarification!

As for 10179 I'd always supposed that it may have been conceived of as a swansong for the Star Wars Lego license in case it did expire in 2007 as first anticipated.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Aeroeza

[Darth Nihilus]

I think Aeroeza has already spoken for me here:

To expand on this point, minifigures redirect play toward people rather than toward building. With "minifigure-scale" MOCs, MOCers are forced to compromise aspects of a build, whether it be size, stability, or technique, to accommodate a minifigure. 10212 with its opening cabin is a perfect example of this. Take minifigures out of the equation and more Star Wars MOCs may have been along the lines of this - indepedent of scale with the MOCer's choices in construction determined more by the original subject than anything else - as opposed to this, in which parts usage and depiction of certain areas are largely depedent on the size and shape of the minifigure. If we continue to tolerate minifigures in UCS sets, we risk The LEGO Group bringing down the higher standard that UCS sets have enjoyed.

Furthermore, regarding 10221:

As a reply to this, I will quote myself:

"I didn't mean how accurate the bridge is, it's in the body for God's sake! I just meant that some sets, like the CTT, could be great with figs, if they did it right. But larger vehicles, like the SSD or the ISD or the Venator don't work with figs. If they did, say, a UCS Venator and put Wullf Yularen and Anakin in it with a bridge in the center, I would hate it because it isn't accurate. But if they did a UCS AT-AT with a troop bay and an accurate cockpit ( able to fit 2 pilots and 2 commanders), then I would like it because it's accurate. When there is an accurate solution to put figs in, I will accept it with open arms."

Furthermore, something like that would not compromise the spirit of the UCS line. It would be accurate, and thus suitable for a UCS set. That is my point, and no one can strike it down because it's true.

[Algernon]

Frankly, I strongly dislike anything post-OT. The movies ranged from terrible to mediocre, and the Star Wars universe suffered because of it. That's a big reason why, despite being a die-hard Space fan, LEGO Star Wars has never interested me. Besides getting the same sets every year, the remarkably ugly Clone Wars minifigs kept me from being interested in anything BUT the UCS sets - which, of course, are way out of my price range.

That said, my personal taste regarding the Star Wars trilogies doesn't affect my appreciation for a well-designed starship. If LEGO decided to come out with a well designed model based on the PT universe, I'd be tempted to buy it, if only for the cool aesthetics.

[Fallenangel]

Could the LEGO Group’s decision to significantly alter the nature of the UCS line somehow be related to the (apparent) lack of success they had with 10215? I mean, play features in 10221 and power functions in the upcoming 10227...10179 and 10212 included minifigures, but they were still designed with static display in mind (hence the tedious process of moving the wings on the latter), as was 10215.

[cavegod]

as far as i was aware the lack of sales for 10215 was only due to the price not the model, i love the model it's a great build and looks nice but would never have paid the rrp.

[Blondie-Wan]

Could the LEGO Group’s decision to significantly alter the nature of the UCS line somehow be related to the (apparent) lack of success they had with 10215?

If you're talking about the inclusion of minifigures in the Executor, I doubt TLG ever thought they were significantly altering the nature of the UCS line. I further suspect that if they've followed discussion here of that set since it was announced, it's been with a mixture of bemusement, incredulity and "ohhhhhhhh"-like dawning awareness of a different POV of which they were previously unaware.

[Mr Man]

TLG should include minifigs in UCS sets but they should be free standing without having to compromise the set to build a place for them to go. Out of the UCS with minifigs two have been almost minifig scale so that doesn't matter, but if TLG wants to include minifigs with the likes of the SSD they shouldn't mess up the structure just for them, maybe include a part of a scale bridge with the ship.

[The_Chosen_1]

TLG should include minifigs in UCS sets but they should be free standing without having to compromise the set to build a place for them to go. Out of the UCS with minifigs two have been almost minifig scale so that doesn't matter, but if TLG wants to include minifigs with the likes of the SSD they shouldn't mess up the structure just for them, maybe include a part of a scale bridge with the ship.

I don't think the inclusion of a bridge scene "messed with the structure" of 10221 at all. In fact, it is so well designed that it's impossible to tell there's a removable panel once it's in place. I think this is a great move for TLG going forward.

As long as the minifig features on UCS sets are well-designed and don't compromise the outward appearance too much, I say go for it.

[Lobot]

I really don’t see any genuine advantage in having the minifigures included within the Executor, and hope that they don’t repeat this in future sets of a similar scale. I had mine on display for a couple of weeks, but ended up adding the minifigures to my main collection as they simply didn’t ‘fit’ any way I tried. Most annoyingly, you can’t even store them inside the bridge as it was too small, so they had to lurk under it!

I really like minifigures, but I think that Lego should stick to including them in minifigure-scale (e.g. 10179, 10212 & 10123) UCS sets!

[Mr Man]

I really like minifigures, but I think that Lego should stick to including them in minifigure-scale (e.g. 10179, 10212 & 10123) UCS sets!

10123 isn't technically a UCS .

[Lobot]

10123 isn't technically a UCS .

I was expecting someone to say that Mr Man!

Well, it was included in the May 2011 promotional poster: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/UCS_Promotional_Poster, it has a ‘10’ prefix and is expensive, so I’m sticking with my original statement

[Mr Man]

I was expecting someone to say that Mr Man!

Well, it was included in the May 2011 promotional poster: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/UCS_Promotional_Poster, it has a ‘10’ prefix and is expensive, so I’m sticking with my original statement

Well for me only:

■ 7181

■ 7191

■ 10019

■ 10026

■ 10030

■ 10129

■ 10134

■ 10143

■ 10174

■ 10175

■ 10179

■ 10212

■ 10215

■ 10221

Are UCS the rest are just big expensive sets .

[cavegod]

No display sticker no UCS Simples as they would say in a certain tv ad.

[Hollander]

[...]

I mean, play features in 10221 and power functions in the upcoming 10227...

[...]

I don't see what's the point of playing features in a UCS set anyway. Who do they expect to buy a $400 set? 10-year olds? If I would spend such an amount of money on a UCS set, I would judge it on the looks and price. Not the playing features!

Edited October 28, 2011 by Hollander

[gotoAndLego]

Frankly, I strongly dislike anything post-OT...

Don't you mean anything pre-OT. :D

[Brickdoctor]

Frankly, I strongly dislike anything post-OT.

Don't you mean anything pre-OT. :D

Both of you are correct. You mean 'anything but OT'.

[lightningtiger]

Should we have a poll to see what we want OT or PT or dare I say CW UCS sets....I say OT.

Now making UCS sets slightly playable is not so bad, look at the major Technic sets with remote controls etc., they are generally only built by AFOL's....they can then say when friend's come over for drinks 'Look at what this can do !'....us boys-with-their-toys eh ?

[apps]

No display sticker no UCS Simples as they would say in a certain tv ad.

Pretty much hey, I don't know why those other ones were on the poster as the data sticker is what makes it a ucs set I reckon.

[Anio]

Pretty much hey, I don't know why those other ones were on the poster as the data sticker is what makes it a ucs set I reckon.

Because those who made the poster are not Lego fan.

They do not know much about Lego stuff.

[Darth Nihilus]

Should we have a poll to see what we want OT or PT or dare I say CW UCS sets....I say OT.

CW UCS! Finally someone gives light to my dream! (Sorry Doc. )

I say PT. PT fans are now all grown up, now is the perfect time to make UCS that applies to 'their' trilogy.

[Mr Man]

If it's a nice big detailed ship or vehicle it should be a UCS set regardless of PT CW TCW OT etc. There probably will never be a EU UCS Set but any other will do.

[StarWarsTom]

Here are the current official Lego Star Wars designer videos for the UCS and Exclusive series:

Lego 10221 UCS Super Star Destroyer:

Lego 10227 UCS B-Wing Starfighter:

Lego 10225 UCS R2D2

Youtube code: wptTnQ58gGA

Lego 10240 UCS Red Five X-Wing:

Youtube code: RayxvWlR35E

Lego 10236 Ewok Village:

Youtube code: aXE5KYeHGDc

Lego 75059 (UCS) Sandcrawler:

Youtube code: v0l6OA1VZpI

If you find any other Lego Star Wars designer videos, please post it. - Thanks.

[Robert_88]