This is minifig scale falcon http://www.ebay.com/bhp/lego-10179 ;)

So we are talking about UCS scale, i see. The term he used got me irritated.

Thanks for the barge review cookiemonster, great to see these new sets starting to roll out, can't wait

Since the Summer 2013 sets are technically at Toys R Us right now, when do we expect them to hit store Shelves at Target, Walmart, Kmart, and other stores.

Edited May 26, 201311 yr by Savage Oppress

Thanks for the review, Cookie Monster

So we are talking about UCS scale, i see. The term he used got me irritated.

UCS is not a scale; UCS is a style of building. He used the correct term - 10179 is the minifig-scale Falcon. 7965 is a System set, the varying scale that TLG uses for it's main line of sets, which may or may not be minifig-scale. (In 7965's case, it's nowhere even close to minifig-scale.)

That having been said (And this is not directed specifically at you, Ki-Adi; I know you were just replying to someone else.), please remember that this topic is for discussion of rumored sets and confirmed sets to be released in 2013. Listing and discussion of sets you wish to see or think we will see in the future belong in Future Star Wars Sets. Thanks!

10179 is the minifig-scale Falcon.

No. 10179 is the UCS-scale Falcon.

7965 and 10179 both have minifig in the ship, and so, both can be considered as minifig scaled.

Never forget that minifig scale is not a scale.

To sum up :

UCS : style of building with high details and accuracy. Sometimes minifig scale.

System : same as playset. Very often in minifig scale.

Minifig scale : a model in which you can put minifig, whatever the size of the model.

Edited May 26, 201311 yr by Anio

No. 10179 is the UCS-scale Falcon.

No, UCS is not a scale. You even say it yourself later in your post: UCS is a "style of building".

Minifig scale : a model in which you can put minifig, whatever the size of the model.

If that were true, the UCS Executor would be minifig-scale.

What about new Imperial Star Destroyer? Were there any confirmations about this set?

What about new Imperial Star Destroyer? Were there any confirmations about this set?

Where was this mentioned? I haven't heard anything about such a set... Although to be honest I didn't pay close attention to this thread for a couple weeks, so I might have missed it.

No, UCS is not a scale. You even say it yourself later in your post: UCS is a "style of building".

Yes, missuse the word. 10179 is the UCS model.

(however, with the word "UCS scale" I rather meant "UCS built" ; in Lego, the word scale means nothing)

If that were true, the UCS Executor would be minifig-scale.

10221 is a crappy exception.

Saying that a minifig scaled model is just a model in which you can put minifigs is very true for 99,99% of the Lego sets.

Edited May 26, 201311 yr by Anio

Somebody told about the box with printing "Lego Imperial...". I'm not sure, that that was a real set.

Edited May 26, 201311 yr by MaceWindu

Saying that a minifig scaled model is just a model in which you can put minifigs is very true for 99,99% of the Lego sets.

I disagree; the basic minifig is one definite size and as such determines one definite scale compared to itself based on the ratio of the size of the minifig to the size of a person. (Or, actually, two, maybe three different scales, depending on whether you scale to the height or width of the minifig, but still scales that don't vary that much.) I concede that sometimes compromises need to be made because this is LEGO, but that doesn't mean that anything you can fit a minifig into is minifig-scale.

Somebody told about the box with printing "Lego Imperial...". I'm not sure, that that was a real set.

Oh, was it the big crate? The general consensus is that LEGO sets wouldn't be shipped like that (and I think the number was also inconsistent with what we've seen in other sets), and it was probably a model for display at a theme park or a store.

Edit

Edited May 26, 201311 yr by nrg

Let's stop talking about scale, please. And Brickdoctor, there was no previous mention of a Star Destroyer.

And Brickdoctor, there was no previous mention of a Star Destroyer.

I beg to differ.

Oh. I came on later than that was posted!

Anyone know if the Jedi Defender will be released in the UK on the 1st June with the rest of the Star Wars Summer wave?

Itching to order it, and would be even sweeter if I can get the Jor-El polybag along with it (I need his head to represent my SWTOR character along with the Zabrak Jedi's armour).

Cheers,

Kurtt

Cool LEGO Yoda "NY I Love" Minifigure Video Review:

Shouldn't it be "NY Love I" given Yoda's particular grammatical disposition?

Shouldn't it be "NY Love I" given Yoda's particular grammatical disposition?

No, they have it the right way round for yoda, otherwise normally it should be I <3 NY, whereas they have it as NY, I love... such as 'Powerful, you have become'.

Edited May 27, 201311 yr by Fuppylodders

Shouldn't it be "NY Love I" given Yoda's particular grammatical disposition?

No, they have it the right way round for yoda, otherwise normally it should be I <3 NY, whereas they have it as NY, I love... such as 'Powerful, you have become'.

<starwarsgeek>

I've seen examples of both basic arrangements: complement-verb-subject ("Powerful Jedi was he." "A domain of evil it is." "So certain are you.") and complement-subject-verb ("My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained"* "The Dark Side of the Force are they." "A powerful ally it is."). So both would technically be correct based on what we've seen before. (At least in Empire) That being said, I agree that "NY, I love" sounds better than "NY love I".

*This one's actually a little tricky; if you rearrange the basic groups of words you'd end up with the question "Will I keep my own counsel on who is to be trained?" instead of the statement. But the basic arrangement is the same, complement-subject-verb.

</starwarsgeek>

<starwarsgeek>

I've seen examples of both basic arrangements: complement-verb-subject ("Powerful Jedi was he." "A domain of evil it is." "So certain are you.") and complement-subject-verb ("My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained"* "The Dark Side of the Force are they." "A powerful ally it is."). So both would technically be correct based on what we've seen before. (At least in Empire) That being said, I agree that "NY, I love" sounds better than "NY love I".

*This one's actually a little tricky; if you rearrange the basic groups of words you'd end up with the question "Will I keep my own counsel on who is to be trained?" instead of the statement. But the basic arrangement is the same, complement-subject-verb.

</starwarsgeek>

Actually I think by following the structure of your examples* he would actually say something like (as a statement, not question) "Love NY, I do" or "Love for NY, have I". But I would also expect it to be rendered as "NY, I love" since that uses only the original words.

* typo'd exmaples... what is that? A bunch of Canadian ex-pats?

CREATURE: Not far. Yoda not far. Patience. Soon you will be with him.(tasting food from the pot) Rootleaf, I cook. Why wish you become Jedi? Hm?

"NY, I love" is fine. I hope this ends the debate.

I apologize for the stupidly uncapitalized "lego" in my last post! Veer away from Yoda grammar, in this discussion should we, hmm?

yes, crazy you may go.

Having seen the first non-TLC / non-photoshopped pictures of the Sail Barge now, I am not sure if I like those sails, as they are really shiny and plastic-y. Reminds me of seeing the new Lone Ranger teepee in person, which was quite a disappointment. I had the Barge on my wanted list but I am not sure about it anymore. It's surely something that we can fix easily, but I am kind of a purist and adding a few pieces here and there is another thing than crafting new sails. Looking forward for the first picture reviews!