Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

y2josh

Bandit said:

I'm still trying to figure this thing out. Over double the price of the previous version, double the piece count, yet it's the same height, 2 inches *narrower*, and 3 inches longer.

Barring whatever the non-cockpit portion of the interior holds, it DOES have the extra detailing in the cockpit and tons of small plates on the hull to give it a 'weathered' look. I'm not impressed at this price, mind you, but I can see where at least some of the extra pieces are coming from.

Redbullgivesuwind

I must admit I am not entirely sure why they have reproduced this set again. It does feature in the movie but I would not say, unlike the X-wing, this is an iconic machine. Surely it could have been better to have done something we have not seen before for one of the UCS slots? Such as a lower priced sand speeder or Anakin's Podracer.

y2josh

^This set is odd all-around. It's a strange vehicle to try to get such a high price out of, it's dumbfounding that this is what they chose to reapply the UCS branding to, and it's a bizarre choice to get people excited about May the 4th.

Unless they start it out in fire sale mode, of course. And then I'd consider it.

AdeelZubair

I like the fact the box art makes it look like an old Lego Star Wars set.

legomatt

I've just seen some high res pictures... man, that's one UGLY Luke Skywalker. The fig designers have gone overboard on the 'human' features this time. Far too much unnecessary almost random 'detail'. What's going on with Luke's mouth?

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/hinckley/Sandcrawler/web/75059_1to1_004.jpg"

Lobot

^ It's a ploy to encourage everyone to purchase the new 2014 Visual Dictionary.... suddenly the old Luke looks really good!

Legoboy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiFuerPjhT8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

richo

Love the box art!

richo

and I like the model too. Can't wait to get it.

monkeyhanger

I'm amazed at the piece count - 3296 pieces in that? Fair enough, there's probably about 130 pieces in each of the tread assemblies, maybe 100 pieces in all the minifigs/droids, but where are the other 2676 pieces? It looks around half that. With that piece count there can be no denying the price, nor the shelf perception of relative value for money.

For most Lego UCS sets, I have been pleasantly surprised that my expectation of the size of the finished article has been exceeded (the IS was about 1.5 times the size I thought it would be). This one will disappoint many an uninitiated parent I suspect, when they see the finished article vs what they paid for it.

The Deat star really does skew the whole of the £200/$300+ line-up. Next to that, everything else looks poor value for money, given the size of it, the number of pieces, and the number of minifigs it comes with.

I wonder if this is exclusive from the outset and stays exclusive (in the UK at least)? If so, I would probably go for it, but maybe wait until brick Friday for 10/20% off - as I did with #10240. I really do wonder whether TLG will milk the UCS tag - make it appear special and people will pay more for it.

monkeyhanger

Maybe i'm converted. Have you seen the youtube footage on Toys N bricks? The top of the Sandcrawler is packed with detail, the rear tread sets are steerable (but no power functions), it looks a lot more impressive in the video than the side of the box.

http://toysnbricks.com/offical-lego-star-wars-press-release-75059-sandcrawler/

legofanfromleeds

legomatt said:

I've just seen some high res pictures... man, that's one UGLY Luke Skywalker. The fig designers have gone overboard on the 'human' features this time. Far too much unnecessary almost random 'detail'. What's going on with Luke's mouth?

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/hinckley/Sandcrawler/web/75059_1to1_004.jpg"

Its for charity man ...movember

Vortex

I know I've been bi****ing about this for a week . But I love this toaster, the box looks great and 3300+ , I'm buying and adding my own headlights to this !

CapnRex101

The model looks good to me, and the Minifigures are excellent, but no capes and no Power Functions for £250? That seems like a lot of money for relatively little set to me!

As for the UCS debate, I have come to think that UCS probably just means 'over £120' or something like that nowadays. The concept has become disconnected with its roots of larger scale models and now seems to apply to any set which has a price tag of three figures, which is a real shame.

vwong19

Did the Jawas wear capes or just a robe? For the price it should include capes for everyone including Luke, C-3PO, and uncle Owen. Interesting to see how this build is different from the original.

FollowsClosely

Looks like a great build, but not sure it will make it into our home.

vitreolum

Nowhere as bad as the first impression, will get it.

canon03

I'll take another #10236 (ewok village) over this any day.

Vortex

@LegoFanTexas‌ ...Did we not agree on 3200 pieces ; )

LegoFanTexas

Vortex said:

@LegoFanTexas‌ ...Did we not agree on 3200 pieces ; )

Yes, something like that...

LegoFanTexas

monkeyhanger said:

I'm amazed at the piece count - 3296 pieces in that? Fair enough, there's probably about 130 pieces in each of the tread assemblies, maybe 100 pieces in all the minifigs/droids, but where are the other 2676 pieces? It looks around half that. With that piece count there can be no denying the price, nor the shelf perception of relative value for money.

For most Lego UCS sets, I have been pleasantly surprised that my expectation of the size of the finished article has been exceeded (the IS was about 1.5 times the size I thought it would be). This one will disappoint many an uninitiated parent I suspect, when they see the finished article vs what they paid for it.

^ This, times two...

Yea, yea, it is probably a dense heavy model with lots of detail, but $350 for that?

Meh...

It will sell I suppose, but I'm not jumping up and down about it...

Ignoring part count for a minute, which I am no longer paying as much attention to as it feels that models are being part inflated with small parts, that set looks like it should cost the same as Imperial Shuttle. Had it been $250, it would be MUCH more interesting.

It will be interesting to see what the parts actually weigh and compare that to the weight/part of Death Star.

LegoFanTexas

Legoboy said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiFuerPjhT8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thank you for posting that...

I don't mean to be harsh, he is probably a good designer and a very nice person, but he has no business doing customer facing videos. I won't get into why, it should be obvious for anyone who understands it...

Leave the videos to those who are good at it. Frankly, the only person I've seen who is actually good at it is Jamie...

TheLoneTensor

It's kinda hard to tell, are all those computers stickers?

Plus, a Star Wars WALL-E :)

rancorbait

TheLoneTensor said:

It's kinda hard to tell, are all those computers stickers?

Plus, a Star Wars WALL-E :)

Looks like stickers to me.

rancorbait

Nice angle here... Looks great to me!

Lobot

I've finally realised what's bugging me about this, it's the interior. For 3,200 parts I'd expected that the interior would have been far better finished than it is; I know that 10144 was brick built, but it looked far tidier and was half the part count.

It's also a shame about the lack of PFs - I think TLG group missed a trick on that. I'd have happily paid £350 for a fully RC version with LEDs etc, but I'll still probably buy it at some point.

Legoboy

LegoFanTexas said:

Thank you for posting that...

I don't mean to be harsh, he is probably a good designer and a very nice person, but he has no business doing customer facing videos. I won't get into why, it should be obvious for anyone who understands it...

Leave the videos to those who are good at it. Frankly, the only person I've seen who is actually good at it is Jamie...

I really don't want to sound argumentative, although I'm aware it's probably going to come across as if I am, but "he has no business"? That is harsh. ;o) He's the designer. He has every right to do it. If it were my baby, it would be my duty to do it whether or not I wanted to. I wouldn't. :o)

Whereas I understand exactly what you are saying about 'you know what', I loved the fact that he 'builded' his Sandcrawler. He's human.

LegoFanTexas

Of course he is human... most people have no business doing such videos... (myself included!)

It would make more sense to have a professional showing off the set, maybe interviewing the designer, showing a kid playing with it.

It takes a certain skill set to do it, those who are good at designing LEGO are not the same people who are good at doing customer facing videos. :)

Legoboy

If traditionally TLG didn't have the designer showing off his/her own set, you would of course be right. But they do.

Vortex

Honestly i am just happy they decided and gave us a full bodied SC . Its not the most popular vehicle outside the hardcore SW fan base and if you look at sheer cash cow prospects , this would not be the choice .

Yes they could have made it better and i really wish they had atleast embedded those cockpit windows . But all in all i am happy to add this in my want" list .

Legofanscott

Beautiful box art, looks like its from the early 2000's

Ive always hated the cheap looking graphics on recent UCS sets

Looks more "special" and less like a run of the mill system set

Best of all its got UCS on it, guess lego have been listening to the criticism :)

Legofanscott

Really dont understand the criticism on this set already

Lego have managed to take a rather boring vehicle and make it look really fun to build, and really nicely detailed and has a part count higher than the UCS star destroyer.

You can see theyve worked quite hard on this set to please adults aswell as kids :)

Legofanscott

Can imagine the price of the original SC will be hit hard

LegoFanTexas

Legofanscott said:

Really dont understand the criticism on this set already

Lego have managed to take a rather boring vehicle and make it look really fun to build, and really nicely detailed and has a part count higher than the UCS star destroyer.

You can see theyve worked quite hard on this set to please adults aswell as kids :)

You can't really compare the part count to UCS Star Destroyer. This has an interior while that does not. 10030 is also much bigger, but just a shell.

pharmjod

I personally think anyone saying the original #10144 is overall better is just romanticizing that set. Yes it was ok for its time, but even then it wasn't overly special. I didn't even keep one for myself as I just wasn't that impressed with the set. Personally, I think this one actually looks better. Now the price tag, that's another story. However, I suspect this one will be discounted eventually. It really isn't something I can see a ton of parents paying $300 for to be honest. I think Ewok Village wins out in that battle. If it ends up like the B-wing, I'll be all in :) Still, I will likely get one for myself regardless.

Also, box art is beautiful! Would be even better if it is the same quality that the #41999 is, and would make the price a little easier to swallow.

drdavewatford

Communication direct from LEGO :

"The decision has been made to change the packaging for future “LEGO® exclusive” Star Wars™ sets to include the UCS seal and de-link from the core Star Wars packaging. In addition to the packaging change an update has been made to the building instructions. The building instructions will have additional pages detailing the model’s connection to the movie and its development process. Much as the Creator Expert badge differentiates the larger models from the core assortment the goal of this change is to better communicate to builders that these sets represent our biggest building challenge in the LEGO® Star Wars™ theme."

Legofanscott

LegoFanTexas said:

Legofanscott said:

Really dont understand the criticism on this set already

Lego have managed to take a rather boring vehicle and make it look really fun to build, and really nicely detailed and has a part count higher than the UCS star destroyer.

You can see theyve worked quite hard on this set to please adults aswell as kids :)

You can't really compare the part count to UCS Star Destroyer. This has an interior while that does not. 10030 is also much bigger, but just a shell.

I wasnt really comparing it, just saying that its a nice part count.

Its certainly the most impressive ucs set since 10212

Legofanscott

drdavewatford said:

Communication direct from LEGO :

"The decision has been made to change the packaging for future “LEGO® exclusive” Star Wars™ sets to include the UCS seal and de-link from the core Star Wars packaging. In addition to the packaging change an update has been made to the building instructions. The building instructions will have additional pages detailing the model’s connection to the movie and its development process. Much as the Creator Expert badge differentiates the larger models from the core assortment the goal of this change is to better communicate to builders that these sets represent our biggest building challenge in the LEGO® Star Wars™ theme."

Thats nice to know, feels like your owning something special when the boxes look like that, imagine how cool the AT-AT box will be IF it ever gets released!

monkeyhanger

LegoFanTexas said:

You can't really compare the part count to UCS Star Destroyer. This has an interior while that does not. 10030 is also much bigger, but just a shell.

I'd be really interested to know the weight of the new set to compare as a marker for value for money. Recently got the VW camper #10220, and it's not huge (compared to the box size), but it sure is dense.

mathew

Well I knew opinion would change once people actually saw the whole model and not a single image. I guess I can see where all the parts went, but I believe without any discounts it will be a hard sell at $300. I know I won't be purchasing it unless I can get a 30% or more discount.

Smart move in emphasizing the UCS on the box. My guess is that the last couple of UCS models have sold poorly and this is a marketing move to hype up the theme again.

monkeyhanger

If there was a black Friday style discount on this for the 4th, i'd buy it on day one. I seriously doubt there will be though. The May 4th exclusive minifig might sway me (Aunt Beru or another droid for the Sandcrawler - maybe chromed RA-7 with proper insectoid head?). I have some ebay money saved to cover this, and because it's reselling money it doesn't feel like real money (as daft as that sounds), it's all money for the hobby, from the hobby, which might sway me to get it, unless a good discount on the Ewok Village turns up soon to divert those funds.

monkeyhanger

That box is a work of art, as Lego boxes go.

Legoboy

@drdavewatford - Whilst TLG appear to be in a talkative mood and discussing the reasoning behind the UCS tag, any chance you can coax out of them a list of what they do consider UCS?

Brick_Obsession

I am starting to see people selling off there #10179 on the whispers of Lego doing another UCS version of it in the future.

For those of you who are deciding to sell it in the hopes of Lego releasing another one are you not concerned that it will not be as good. In my opinion the Sandcrawler is not that much better than the first if at all better (UCS set or not, still to be determined). What about the Sail barge, the second one was just god awful. Does Lego really have any where to improve on the existing #10179. Something else too, will it be a limited run or will it just be a regular UCS set. Thus loosing a lot of it's appeal that the #10179 had.

drdavewatford

Legoboy said:

@drdavewatford - Whilst TLG appear to be in a talkative mood and discussing the reasoning behind the UCS tag, any chance you can coax out of them a list of what they do consider UCS?

There isn't anyone who could provide a definitive answer to this.

Legoboy

drdavewatford said:

Legoboy said:

@drdavewatford - Whilst TLG appear to be in a talkative mood and discussing the reasoning behind the UCS tag, any chance you can coax out of them a list of what they do consider UCS?

There isn't anyone who could provide a definitive answer to this.

Just what they "consider" will do. ;o)

monkeyhanger

I can't see the replacement of 10179 doing amazingly well if it is much more money than the original. Plenty of people here that say they'd buy the replacement in a heartbeat at £400/$600 and up, but would the general public see this in a better light than the original one first time around? It is a hell of a lot of money for a Lego set to the majority of people who buy Lego for their kids.

Give it the #41999 treatment of 20k or 50k units though and watch them fly off the shelves at any price TLG chooses.

I think a lesser/smaller model with fewer parts at the same (or slightly lower) price-point is more likely. If that were to happen then 10179 would still be the one to have, but maybe the prices would have to soften when you can get something that's 90% of the way there for 20% of the price.

Vortex

So then dimensions again .looks 60 studs long , 28 -30 studs height . That translates 18" by about 9.5" roughly

Vortex

The product history and development process mentioned can be seen on the bottom of the back side of the gorgeous box

y2josh

Brick_Obsession said:

Does Lego really have any where to improve on the existing #10179.

I'm not among them, but I know a lot of people would have liked it to be more of a playset than a display model, although, at its size, that's would jack the piece count (and price) even higher than it already was.

For me, the only thing they could have really improved (though I'm not sure what technique they could have used) would have been the viewport on the cockpit, which looks a little terrible, especially compared to the rest of the model.