4483 vs 10178 AT-AT Walker

Comments

• graphite USMember Posts: 3,271

  October 2012

  Personally I think the 10178 looks better. I recently picked a used one up and since it was already built had it walk across my kitchen floor and even though it is kind of clunky movement it gave me great joy to see it walk. Very glad I didn't buy one of the other versions.

  0
• Renny USAMember Posts: 1,145

  October 2012

  10178 hands down. The build was fun and I never get tired of seeing it move around with Luke still dangling from it.

  0
• Lego_Lord_Mayorca H-Town, USAMember Posts: 609

  October 2012

  Keep the 4483. While it can't "walk" per se, it more than makes up for it in accuracy to what an actual AT-AT from the films looks like. The head in particular is a downgrade from how 4483's head is designed and built, an especially unfortunate mark against it since it did nothing to rectify what was wrong with the original 4483 head (no ability to seat two minifigs side-by-side and neck structural stability).
  
  Since you specified "fun build and display", I cannot recommend 4483 enough as the one to keep. It is a fantastic build, looks imposing and deadly as it should when finished, and you don't have to worry about batteries needing charing/replacement.

  0
• y2josh Member Posts: 2,002

  October 2012

  I agree with @Lego_Lord_Mayorca. 10178 is, in my opinion, the worst-looking of the three System AT-ATs.

  0
• LegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

  October 2012

  What about 8129?

  0
• LegoZombies Member Posts: 25

  October 2012 edited October 2012

  I know this is a little off topic but which ever one you chose can you pm me about a offer since i've wanted an At-At Walker for so long. If not that's alright with me.

  0
• y2josh Member Posts: 2,002

  October 2012

  LegoFanTexas said:

  What about 8129?

  8129 is the best of the three, but since the OP hadn't mentioned it, I didn't think to include it in the comparison.

  0
• LegoZombies Member Posts: 25

  October 2012

  Oops i meant which ever one you don't want can you pm me about it.

  0
• LegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

  October 2012

  If 8129 is the best, then it would seem to make the most sense to sell both of the prior sets and buy a new copy of 8129, they are less expensive than both of the older sets.

  0
• monkeyhanger Member Posts: 3,152

  October 2012

  I think the legs on the 8129 look awful, although the head and body are probably the best of the 3. For me the 10178 is the best, the shape of the body section is way off, but I can forgive it that, and it walks (like an arthritic boxer dog).

  0
• monkeyhanger Member Posts: 3,152

  October 2012

  I think we deserve a better AT-AT, in UCS format. UCS should be great for the AT-AT, at the expected piece count we should be able to get one which is at or almost at minifig scale. Howay TLG - take a look at those Cuusoo efforts and build us a UCS AT-AT that you can sell for less than £400/$500. I think we'll have to wait a while for it - TLG seemed to have moved away from Empire with their OT SW focus at the moment.

  0
• y2josh Member Posts: 2,002

  October 2012 edited October 2012

  ^2013 is the 30th anniversary of RotJ, so I expect to see a Jedi-heavy focus for next year's sets. I'd expect a re-release on the AT-ST before we see a new AT-AT (though I suppose they could do a $250 AT-AT/Endor Landing Platform combo... though an Imperial Shuttle would make much more sense as a vehicle in that case).

  0
• monkeyhanger Member Posts: 3,152

  October 2012

  ^ If we were to get a UCS example it wouldn't fall under the usual system trends we see whereby they tend to focus on one film for each of the trilogies that particular year. UCS has had plenty of ROTJ examples lately with the shuttle and SSD (even though it featured in TESB too). Hopefully TLG have been pestered enough via Cuusoo and plenty of large MOCs to make them want to do one. Otherwise a system AT/Shuttle and landing platform combo playset would make sense at the £200 pricepoint.

  0
• The_Sly_Fox Member Posts: 42

  October 2012

  I personally prefer the 4483 as a stand alone model. But the motorized version has the bonus of having the newer style bley bricks.

  0
• Brick_Obsession in a "Brick" house - Calgary, AlbertaMember Posts: 656

  October 2012

  OP forgot about 8129 in his haste to do this post. Oh wait, that's me! Doh! Damn Gray Matter again...
  
  I appreciate the comments guys. I am leaning towards the 8129. Lego could make this easier for me by just creating a UCS AT-AT already :D

  0
• davee123 USAMember Posts: 832

  October 2012

  One other thing to consider is the color change. 4483 used the old colors, while both 10178 and 8129 used the newer colors.
  
  Personally, looks-wise, I liked 4483 the most. 10178 wasn't quite as nice looking, mostly because of the walking mechanism. However, the functionality is fantastic if you're looking for more than just a display model. 8129 seemed a little flimsy to me-- it's smaller than the others, so it always made it look like "AT-AT junior" to me.
  
  DaveE

  0
• drdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,741

  October 2012 edited October 2012

  For me, #4483 is probably the best of the bunch looks-wise, although I'd agree we're well overdue a more faithful UCS version as none of them are great IMHO.

  0