Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

Legofanscott

Legoboy said:

I'd buy one [or a sneaky couple] in a heartbeat.

Im sure they could charge whatever they want and they would still sell all of them, anything thats a limited edition is always going to be more appealing to collectors than something mass produced.

y2josh

LegoFanTexas said:

If it was a 6,000 part set, I can see paying $800 for a mini-fig scale AT-AT.

The AT-AT would be a worthy set to break the 5,922 part record of Taj Mahal and be the first 6K+ part LEGO set.

An AT-AT is actually significantly smaller than the Falcon, though, so to hit such a high piece count, they'd either need to make it larger than minifig scale or utilize TONS of small pieces for the detailing. Or, I suppose, go the full interior route, though that doesn't seem to be typical of the UCS line.

FollowsClosely

Legoboy said:

I'd buy one [or a sneaky couple] in a heartbeat.

My dad, mom and both of my siblings would buy on also :)

Legoboy

^ But I bet @FollowsClosely gets all of the VIPs. ;-)

Basta

If they did do a limited edition and only sold it through S@H, I would not be happy. Your $1000 US set, would probably be $1700 AUD+.

I don't see TLG doing as set that cost more then about $700 at most in the US.

LegoFanTexas

An AT-AT is actually significantly smaller than the Falcon, though, so to hit such a high piece count, they'd either need to make it larger than minifig scale or utilize TONS of small pieces for the detailing.

Is it?

The Falcon is 35 meters long, 26 meters wide, and 8 meters tall.

The AT-AT is listed as 20 meters long and 22 meters tall, no width but I'd go with 8 meters on that part.

So it is smaller than the Falcon, but not by much, and it is a whole lot taller.

Of course, if the Falcon is that large, it sure doesn't look it from the inside, but if you research it at all, you'll find that neither vehicle actually "works" from a practical point of view. The shooting models and exterior shots in the movies on the Falcon do not match the interior at all.

But then it was never designed to be looked at that closely, it was a cheap sci-fit fantasy movie made in 1977 for Pete's sake. :)

Regardless, if you made a minifig scale AT-AT it would have to be very large, about half a meter tall, if 1:44 is the minifig scale that you use.

So assuming the above sizes, a mini-fig scale AT-AT would be 51 cm tall, 45 cm long, and 18 cm wide.

mathew

LegoFanTexas said:

So assuming the above sizes, a mini-fig scale AT-AT would be 51 cm tall, 45 cm long, and 18 cm wide.

I don't see why that couldn't be doable for under 2,000 pcs. The design isn't that brick heavy since a lot of the height comes from the skinny legs.

y2josh

LegoFanTexas said:

An AT-AT is actually significantly smaller than the Falcon, though, so to hit such a high piece count, they'd either need to make it larger than minifig scale or utilize TONS of small pieces for the detailing.

Is it?

The Falcon is 35 meters long, 26 meters wide, and 8 meters tall.

The AT-AT is listed as 20 meters long and 22 meters tall, no width but I'd go with 8 meters on that part.

So it is smaller than the Falcon, but not by much, and it is a whole lot taller.

Of course, if the Falcon is that large, it sure doesn't look it from the inside, but if you research it at all, you'll find that neither vehicle actually "works" from a practical point of view. The shooting models and exterior shots in the movies on the Falcon do not match the interior at all.

But then it was never designed to be looked at that closely, it was a cheap sci-fit fantasy movie made in 1977 for Pete's sake. :)

Regardless, if you made a minifig scale AT-AT it would have to be very large, about half a meter tall, if 1:44 is the minifig scale that you use.

So assuming the above sizes, a mini-fig scale AT-AT would be 51 cm tall, 45 cm long, and 18 cm wide.

The measurements are sound with the exception of width (AT-AT's are about 6m wide looking at any 'official' blueprint), but I'm still not seeing any practical way the piece count can come even close to the Falcon. Certainly not at minifig scale.

The only thing that could help it is the legs, which, done properly, would be EXTREMELY thin and need only minor detailing. The body SHOULD be plate heavy with the cockpit commanding more small pieces to get the correct shape as well as some likely part heavy cannons. The biggest problem is that the exterior of the AT-AT isn't nearly as detailed as the exterior of the Falcon, so you're losing a lot of tiny pieces there as well.

I'm not saying I wouldn't find a UCS AT-AT awesome... but there's just no practical way I can imagine TLG designing it where it could come even close to 10179's piece count, unless they deliberately designed it inefficiently to artificially jack up the piece count.

bellybutton290

^don't forget the interior with all the chairs for the snow boys to sit in and some speeder bikes in the garage at the back, wouldn't make for a massive increase in pieces but still other part of the model to consider and let's not forget minifigs would need to be added with a minimum of 6 in my view with 2x at-at drivers , veers (done better than the last one and unique) luke because he's a must isn't he really and some snowies likely 2 but more would be good and /or maybe even the snow scout troopers for collectability.

y2josh

^General Veers with the proper rank insignia would be nice, but a lot of those figures you listed are more cursory, and I could do with just Veers and the pilot, personally.

monkeyhanger

I think we all talk of 6000 pieces because Cavegod's superbly detailed model matches that piece count. How tall/wide/long is Cavegods model? is it significantly bigger than minifig scale to perhaps justify is saying a true minifig scale model could be done with far fewer parts? His is the first MOC AT-AT I have seen where everything looks in perfect proportion. Most I have seen have a head and body that appear in proportion with each other and then really skinny legs.

General Veers and a few Pilots are a must (although I have many AT-AT pilots and snow troopers thanks to the battlepacks) - could probably do with putting a snow speeder in there (unless you have your own). Other sets have companion models such as tiny Tantative IV with ISD and Tiny ISD with SSD.

Hopefully the cockpit would have enough room to sit 2 pilots side by side with Veers just behind and maybe even room for a senior snow trooper to be briefed.

As far as accomodating minifigs, I think a "working" cockpit would be of most use if they were to ignore a storage space in the belly.

bellybutton290

^ I suppose if you look at the 10212 IS model that only has the cockpit detailed so only a cockpit on an AT-AT is fine, at the end of the day if you are so inclined add the interior, thats the beauty of the brick. As for figs, Veers done properly has to be there he's significant to the film and the AT-AT itself and little more than a slightly changed battlepack imperial hoth officer in the last outing :-(. There is certainly an argument for not including drivers and snowies (we all have those don't we and in multiples?) I still feel the snow scout troopers could be cool and something not yet seen though not really canon as such.

LegoFanTexas

A UCS AT-AT also should have a mini AT-ST build as well.

Why? Watch ESB again, there are AT-STs walking in close support of the AT-ATs. If you give the SSD a mini ISD escort, then why not give UCS AT-AT a mini AT-ST escort?

While I would love for the interior to be built out and playable, it probably is needed for support. UCS Falcon has this problem. If they had tried to give it an interior, it becomes a structural problem. How do you build a 20lb LEGO model of that size without the massive Technic beams supporting everything? A UCS AT-AT may well need similar internal supports to be a "strong model" that doesn't fall apart.

BTW, Cavedog's AT-AT badly needs a dog bowl in front of it with bits of Hoth Base bricks in it. :)

mressin

^ Not sure. The SSD in the UCS Death Star and the ISD in the UCS SSD illustrate scale. If something is already minifig scaled, that wouldn't be necessary. However, if a potential UCS AT-AT model was, let's say, similar in height to the UCS AT-ST, then a mini AT-ST would serve a purpose.

But to be honest, I won't hold my breath for a UCS AT-AT. Even if Lego doesn't start reissuing UCS sets, I would expect a UCS Tie Fighter first, or a UCS A-Wing.

If Lego indeed starts reissuing UCS sets starting with the X-Wing this year, the much more interesting question would be how long until they do a new Falcon. ;)

bellybutton290

Slave 1 and a Tie are badly needed and very possible still odd that, based on this rumour these are not being seen.

Steve_J_OM

Like some others I have a hard time seeing a cavegod-esque 6k piece AT-AT being done, for the simple reason that there probably aren't enough people who need one to be that detailed and articulate. That said, I could still see the AT-AT getting the UCS treatment - something scaled down to 1.5k or closer to 2k pieces, which would be affordable to so many more people.

I'm not a hardcore SW fan, so perhaps I'm easily satiated, but I think they could still make a behemoth out of that piece count - and I reckon if every FOL had a vote the outcome would be for something a little less substantial but eminently more affordable.

hoyatables

Other ideas:
Make sure the cockpit includes a pull-down view screen for Veers.

Add a "shield generator" for the AT-AT to destroy. Extra points if it is designed to blow up.

mathew

I personally would just like an At-At regardless of UCS status. I came out of my dark ages a year ago and I don't want to pay above RRP.

LegoFanTexas

Speaking of Slave 1 and TIE Fighter, we also need a UCS Luke's Landspeeder, do we not?

LegoFanTexas

mathew said:

I personally would just like an At-At regardless of UCS status. I came out of my dark ages a year ago and I don't want to pay above RRP.

Don't worry, with 9 years of more Star Wars LEGO, I'm sure they'll do another one.

Bandit

LegoFanTexas said:

Speaking of Slave 1 and TIE Fighter, we also need a UCS Luke's Landspeeder, do we not?

Maybe, but it's not on my must list, and I wouldn't care whether they ever released one. I'd rather see new busts before that. But I'd take it before a lame xwing remake! :)

y2josh

I agree with @mressin. Including an AT-ST doesn't make much sense, since the model would already (presumably) be to minifig scale. Plus, an AT-ST to the same scale would be slightly larger than the one from 8038, so it would need to be a substantial model unto itself.

bellybutton290

I would love something like cavegods ucs speeder bike to get released aswell.

Deadareus

bellybutton290 said:

I would love something like cavegods ucs speeder bike to get released aswell.

YES. The speeder bikes were my favorite scene as a child (only saw ROTJ in theatres). I LOVED THOSE THINGS!

Purchasing #8084 and building it with my son on a plane 14 mos. ago was what brought me out of my dark ages. I was SHOCKED at how awesome it was. I needed more.

Legofanscott

Does anyone think we will ever see a venator class UCS star destroyer, im not even interested in prequel sets but id still buy it as its such a cool looking ship in its own right

pvancil27

It'd have to be a lot better then the system one, one of the most disappointing sets display wise I own (would probably be the worst if it wasnt for that stupid looking Sith Nightspeeder.)

mrtonytj

pvancil27 said:

It'd have to be a lot better then the system one, one of the most disappointing sets display wise I own (would probably be the worst if it wasnt for that stupid looking Sith Nightspeeder.)

I totally agree.. The night speeder is, well, absolutely stupid? One of the weirdest set's i own.

CaptAPJT

Just realised this thread was alive again after a few months of silence. Personally I'd be keen on a UCS X-Wing remake as when the original came out I was making enough money on my paper round to buy one. Also I think it's fair to say that what was ultimate 10+ years ago can be improved upon. Same applies to what most companies advertise as ultimate. You don't get annoyed with Sony because they advertise the Ultimate home cinema package and then 6months later bring out a better TV.

However I'm betting towards a play set along the lines of Home-one, an x-wing similar to the system set with hanger and briefing room etc.

I've already indicated what I'd like to see in terms of next years UCS models, but only time will tell for sure. Although honestly I'm hoping for some reasonably priced sets this year having splashed out on 5 UCS models last year when I came out of my dark age.

Steve_J_OM

Speaking of UCS, this gave me a chuckle:

mressin

Legofanscott said:

Does anyone think we will ever see a venator class UCS star destroyer, im not even interested in prequel sets but id still buy it as its such a cool looking ship in its own right

Purely out of instinct, I actually think a UCS Venator class would be a great and likely candidate for a UCS set.

Bumblepants

^It would have to be several years from now to do a Venator. I can't imagine they would put two giant bley triangles on sale at the same time.

hoyatables

All this talk about the AT-AT rekindled my interest in acquiring one. My Hoth setups just don't seem complete without it. More details in the Marketplace thread. :)

Deadareus

CaptAPJT said:

I'm hoping for some reasonably priced sets this year having splashed out on 5 UCS models last year when I came out of my dark age.

I hear ya. In the last 12 months I've purchased:

Imperial Shuttle, Super Star Destroyer, Death Star, AT-ST & Obi Wans Starfighter (+ Haunted House, VW Camper, Fire brigade, Toy Shop, Bakery, Post Office, Cottage and countless other non 10###)

It's been a heck of a year and a tireless pursuit.... but I love it! My wife on the other hand... not all about it. But she's been very very reasonable with it all.

madforLEGO

UCS is Ultimate Collectors Series.
The problem is this is an oxymoron coming from a company that constantly updates its models and usually the newer are better due to better color selection and or part types that better match what the design calls for.
I would say if they did do another UCS X-Wing it probably would be different in some way, like Red Leader's X-Wing, or Red 5, Red 2 etc.
But I agree, if that is the UCS that would be coming out you would have a few people miffed for sure, plus a slot would be taken up for x years for the UCS, but ultimately if LEGO wants to do it they will, but make it a bit different in description, because the 'Ultimate' tells me it should be the best model that can be designed at that time for that set, and Im guessing they would also make it slightly different to try to ensure people are happy. Plus lets face it eventually they will run out of stuff to make as UCS.. you are not going to see a UCS Landspeeder (or are we?).. I'm guessing they have a few more variants of the tie fighter, the Y Wing, mon calamari cruiser, A Wing, AT-AT, Sandcrawler and some others to do first(and that is only the original trilogy).Then I'm guessing you will see Luke's Red 5, Darth Vaders Tie fighter, etc

Legoboy

#10240 - 'Red Squadron X-Wing Starfighter'. UK price tag of £170.

Disappointed to say the least.

Steve_J_OM

^ Are there any more details beyond the name?

cheshirecat

^^ Surely a good thing compared to the previous expected RRP. Same price as the B-Wing, so assume a similar piece count means about 10% more than the old UCS X-Wing. With newer pieces available there's no reason it couldn't be really quite good.

doriansdad

Sounds about as exciting as the release of the Iphone 6. Thanks for the rehash guys....keep up the hard work.

Bumblepants

@Legoboy Were you able to see the model? and if so gauge its size?

Legoboy

I haven't seen it mate, but judging its price is the same as the B-Wing (for now), if it does share a similar number of parts, much to my annoyance, I'd imagine it's going to be pretty impressive.

streeker

Is the Ewok Village not that far behind? Or will it not get the UCS treatment?

Legoboy

^ Is £200 (or so) UCS enough for you?

Bandit

^ wow, could this finally be the beginning of the end of the Death Star then? (Assuming it's of the playset variety...)

streeker

Wait, do you mean £200 or 250€ for a couple of furry bears and treehuts? Hmmmm....for that price, it better come with a LEGO Ewok baby. That was the only Return of the Jedi card that I never got.

roxio

streeker said:

Is the Ewok Village not that far behind? Or will it not get the UCS treatment?

Legoboy said:

^ Is £200 (or so) UCS enough for you?

Is this from a reliable source ? I hope so :)

Legoboy

^ From someone's secretary this morning.

Diggydoes

I read somewhere that it could also be the X-wing in the death-star trench?! That would mean it ain´t really a rehash!

CaptAPJT

Well my guess is that we're not going to be getting an X-Wing in a trench. This is just speculation but as the trench would be so much bigger than the X-wing I'd opt for a name like "Death Star Attack" or "Trench Run" and include multiple minis like a pair of TIE fighters, Vaders TIE, X-Wing, Y-Wing and possibly even a falcon. So the name along suggests something more specific. Also the Ewok village seems to me to have much more of a playset potential and again while its just my speculation there are plenty of scenarios that could be played out with it.

So as someone who doesn't own 7191 I'm hoping for a nice big X-Wing to add to my collection (will look great with the mini planet model next to it) :-)

CaptAPJT

The reason for my change of opinion from earlier posts is the increased price point and rumours about the Ewok village

jockosjungle

A trench run would be an awful model, you couldn't display it very well. The rumour just seems to come from some random person speculatingl.

Looking forward to an Xwing