Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

1192022242527

Comments

  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited March 2014

    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."

    ...until the next time, in about 2-3 years, when we decide to again change the packaging and/or meaning of UCS. Welcome to Marketing 101, we hope you enjoy your stay"
    dougts
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited March 2014
    Aanchir said:

    A WHOLE LOT OF WORDS

    So it's embarassing that I think Lego squandered a bit of their design energy? And Lego is the epitome of designing? Have you looked at some of the mocs out there recently?

    Regardless, people have opinions, and my opinion is that I think we could have gotten a much better set than this, be it a different set, or just simply a better designed version of this set (printed pieces, better interior, power functions!). Lego can choose where they want to spend their energies, and I can choose what I want to buy. I'll simply pass on this one and see what they have up their sleeve next year.
    dougtsRainstorm26y2joshnkx1
  • Rainstorm26Rainstorm26 Chicago Burbs USA (and sometimes Ireland)Member Posts: 1,004
    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"

    Is that a mustache he's sporting?
  • streekerstreeker FranceMember Posts: 299
    edited March 2014



    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. :)

    If the 'certain skill set' means jutting hips, fake a$$ smiles, and cloying eyebrows like Ms. CUUSOO Sara Moore, I'd take Olaf's trembling hands and earnestness any day, every day.
    TXLegoguydougtsFollowsCloselyLostInTranslation
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    I agree with Aanchir. I think it's a really nice looking set. The initial leaked photo made it look somehow less detailed than what I now see. I couldn't tell where the 3,200 parts went. I also like that they are including a bunch of minifigs. UCS models like the B-Wing and X-Wing feel un-exceptional without minifigs. The minifigs add a degree of playability and "Lego-ness".

    My gripe is that it feels a little overpriced. That's of course to be expected because it's UCS. But couple that with the fact that we may not see any discounting for at least a year or so makes it less desirable for me personally. But I do like the set and if it were a little cheaper and I had more disposable income I would strongly consider purchasing it.
    TXLegoguy
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098

    Aanchir said:

    A WHOLE LOT OF WORDS

    So it's embarassing that I think Lego squandered a bit of their design energy? And Lego is the epitome of designing? Have you looked at some of the mocs out there recently?

    Regardless, people have opinions, and my opinion is that I think we could have gotten a much better set than this, be it a different set, or just simply a better designed version of this set (printed pieces, better interior, power functions!).
    What you want is a $500 model. That's fine if you can afford it. I can't. Maybe we need a separate forum for those that make over six figures a year. You and Big Lego Texas can moderate it.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    This kind of class warfare isn't needed here. It's perfectly valid for people to have different opinions on this set, or what types of sets they want to see. People should be able to disagree without getting personal about it
    TXLegoguyFollowsClosely
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,831

    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"

    Is that a mustache he's sporting?
    I've looked a dozen times and I still can't decide what's going on. Is that heavy wavy line a moustache or is it the underside of his giant hooter? Has he got a cleft chin too? It's all very strange!

    To me it looks like a Space Musketeer who's just gotten out of the shower.
  • legofanfromleedslegofanfromleeds legoland...England Member Posts: 394

    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"

    Is that a mustache he's sporting?
    hes doing his bit for movember

  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    mathew said:

    Aanchir said:

    A WHOLE LOT OF WORDS

    So it's embarassing that I think Lego squandered a bit of their design energy? And Lego is the epitome of designing? Have you looked at some of the mocs out there recently?

    Regardless, people have opinions, and my opinion is that I think we could have gotten a much better set than this, be it a different set, or just simply a better designed version of this set (printed pieces, better interior, power functions!).
    What you want is a $500 model. That's fine if you can afford it. I can't. Maybe we need a separate forum for those that make over six figures a year. You and Big Lego Texas can moderate it.
    Maybe.

    Me? I'd just like a $200 model to not cost $300.

    I don't disagree that it's easy to see how the piece count became inflated, but I don't look at this and say "Less than ten cents a part?!?!?!? HOORAY!!!" I look it at it and say, "Wow. That's A LOT of tiny parts."

    Then again, the Ewok Village at $250 seems like a stunning deal next to this thing, so maybe that's a plus.
    TheLoneTensorRainstorm26
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129


    And Lego is the epitome of designing? Have you looked at some of the mocs out there recently?

    To be fair, Lego designers have numerous types of restrictions imposed upon them during the process, whereas Moccers are not encumbered by such nuisances
    TheLoneTensorLegoboySirKevbagssidersddAdeelZubair
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    dougts said:

    Moccers

    MOCers?
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    Legoboy said:

    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"

    Is that a mustache he's sporting?
    I've looked a dozen times and I still can't decide what's going on. Is that heavy wavy line a moustache or is it the underside of his giant hooter? Has he got a cleft chin too? It's all very strange!

    To me it looks like a Space Musketeer who's just gotten out of the shower.
    The heavy wavy line appears to be his mouth, then the smaller brown line beneath that is, presumably, some sort of lower lip detailing and then a cleft chin. They've been going overboard on the details for a long time, but this is pretty absurd.

    Looks like I'll have to stock up on older-style Luke heads (and Han, actually). Leia, strangely, seems to have avoided this fate thus far.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    mathew said:

    Aanchir said:

    A WHOLE LOT OF WORDS

    So it's embarassing that I think Lego squandered a bit of their design energy? And Lego is the epitome of designing? Have you looked at some of the mocs out there recently?

    Regardless, people have opinions, and my opinion is that I think we could have gotten a much better set than this, be it a different set, or just simply a better designed version of this set (printed pieces, better interior, power functions!).
    What you want is a $500 model. That's fine if you can afford it. I can't. Maybe we need a separate forum for those that make over six figures a year. You and Big Lego Texas can moderate it.
    I would want a more expensive model actually, so at least you're accurate on my wants. But, what you are missing is that all of the things I mentioned with the current set would not add up to $500, or anywhere remotely near. In fairness, I did say power functions, but I'd be content with the ability to easily add power functions. This isn't some $99 price point train (#79111) that they had to make a hard decision on not to PF, or pinch pennies to not print pieces, or to not take short duration of design and work out a better interior. This is the Ultimate Collector's Edition. This set, by Lego's own words is representative of "our biggest building challenge." That, I disagree with.

    Legoboyy2joshdougtsnkx1Rainstorm26AdeelZubair
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    You have to be realistic with the "Ultimate" nomenclature. If you really want the "Ultimate" then you better just learn how to MOC.

    Regarding the lack of power functions: I'm sure someone shortly after release will modify it for power functions. Adding power functions is actually not that expensive. I'm looking at spending about $50 to add it to the Galactic Titan. Considering that I paid $30 for the Titan I'm not out much. If I spent $300 then that would be something else. I'm wondering if we would be more content with a $350 price point that included power functions? Also I'm not sure those plastic tank treads would work well for powered movement. The rubber treads would be best. And that would also lower the piece count by 300 or so.
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    It also sounds like Lego is going slicker with the packaging ala the Architecture series. Sounds good, but that means they're also putting a higher premium on it.
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,831
    edited March 2014
    @mathew‌ Rather than $350 for the set to include PFs, I would have preferred a couple of extra pages at the end of the manuals giving me detail of what was required and how. Would have been a much tastier pill to swallow. I just think they've missed a trick not incorporating PFs.
    Pitfall69
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    I don't think they intend it to be powered. Judging by the pictures and video one would have to modify the interior quite a bit to fit the motors in. I'm sure it can be done however.

    I'm starting to think that some of us would have been happier with a powered play set similar to the motorized AT-AT. As I said before, the Sandcrawler isn't exactly a vehicle that screams hyper detail. It's a roving junk yard in a brown shell. It's charming because of the droids, Jawas and our introduction to Luke Skywalker. There's actually a lot more greebling on this model than the one in the movie.
  • SirKevbagsSirKevbags Fairy Land Member Posts: 4,030
    If it was powered how many people would actually use the function? Only speaking for myself but I'm sure I would watch it move after I built it and then it would go on display never to move again. I can see where @Legoboy is coming from with the option being nice and it would be a great option for kids.

    I suppose internally they could look at sales of PF parts from say the Maersk Train. How many people went out and bought them afterwards? Did it justify the extra design and instruction cost? (I would think these are minimal though in the grand scheme of things)
  • cavegodcavegod Member Posts: 806
    Well its on my list! Just think of the Slave-1 box art!
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,831
    ......and its PFs.
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    The more I look at it the more I like it, all the studs don't even bother me at all anymore. Looks like a lot of fun to build as well, hopefully I will be able to scrape up enough money to get one!
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    ^You don't make 6 figures?
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,831
    edited March 2014
    Depends where you put the decimal point.
    Pitfall69Lobot
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    I would have preferred a Sandcrawler with at least the capability to add PF's. They did it with a lot of trains, most recently the Horizon Express. Why not design the SC to easily add PF's? Everyone keeps saying that Lego's target audience is children, not adults. Children would love to power the Sandcrawler all around the house. I know I would because I'm a big child :-)
    Rainstorm26JeffHAdeelZubair
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    It does seem like a missed opportunity. It's certainly possible they explored the option but found it degraded the stability too much or couldn't find adequate locations for the motors and battery packs. Who knows. Someone will figure out a conversion
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    I'm still waiting for my PF Lego Big Trak.
    Rainstorm26
  • Penkid11Penkid11 Member Posts: 789
    Saw the new Sandcrawler in the flesh today at Bricks Cascade (where it was revealed). It looks so much better than the last one. The fact that the set is littered with functionality and content is really icing on the cake. It also appears to be very durable and quite light-weight as the worker beside the display lifted it up rather easily.

    The new Luke looks rather decent. The human-like features on his face appear to be accented in the close-up images from the press release compared to the Luke I saw today.
  • Rainstorm26Rainstorm26 Chicago Burbs USA (and sometimes Ireland)Member Posts: 1,004

    I'm still waiting for my PF Lego Big Trak.

    I loved that toy. Me and my brother played with that for hours and hours.
  • Rainstorm26Rainstorm26 Chicago Burbs USA (and sometimes Ireland)Member Posts: 1,004
    Penkid11 said:

    Saw the new Sandcrawler in the flesh today at Bricks Cascade (where it was revealed). It looks so much better than the last one. The fact that the set is littered with functionality and content is really icing on the cake. It also appears to be very durable and quite light-weight as the worker beside the display lifted it up rather easily.

    The new Luke looks rather decent. The human-like features on his face appear to be accented in the close-up images from the press release compared to the Luke I saw today.

    Did you or would you buy one for retail price+ tax?
  • Penkid11Penkid11 Member Posts: 789
    edited March 2014

    Penkid11 said:

    Saw the new Sandcrawler in the flesh today at Bricks Cascade (where it was revealed). It looks so much better than the last one. The fact that the set is littered with functionality and content is really icing on the cake. It also appears to be very durable and quite light-weight as the worker beside the display lifted it up rather easily.

    The new Luke looks rather decent. The human-like features on his face appear to be accented in the close-up images from the press release compared to the Luke I saw today.

    Did you or would you buy one for retail price+ tax?
    Where I'm located, tax isn't an issue.

    And if I were a fan of Lego Star Wars, I would be sure to buy this set the day it comes out.
    It's definitely not the Ewok Village, but it still is just as nice. And despite it being a brown box, it looks quite eye catching.

    EDIT: There was only one display set there. None for purchase. It's due out in May, and I'm sure we all know when...
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited March 2014
    Penkid11 said:

    Penkid11 said:

    Saw the new Sandcrawler in the flesh today at Bricks Cascade (where it was revealed). It looks so much better than the last one. The fact that the set is littered with functionality and content is really icing on the cake. It also appears to be very durable and quite light-weight as the worker beside the display lifted it up rather easily.

    The new Luke looks rather decent. The human-like features on his face appear to be accented in the close-up images from the press release compared to the Luke I saw today.

    Did you or would you buy one for retail price+ tax?
    Where I'm located, tax isn't an issue.

    And if I were a fan of Lego Star Wars, I would be sure to buy this set the day it comes out.
    It's definitely not the Ewok Village, but it still is just as nice. And despite it being a brown box, it looks quite eye catching.

    EDIT: There was only one display set there. None for purchase. It's due out in May, and I'm sure we all know when...
    I'm not quite sure you actually answered @Rainstorm26's question. Not that you have to, but you did respond to his note without really saying yes or no for yourself.
    Penkid11 said:

    It also appears to be...quite light-weight as the worker beside the display lifted it up rather easily

    I don't think I want any $300 set of mine to be lightweight and lifted up rather easily.
  • legomattlegomatt Member Posts: 2,548
    edited March 2014
    mathew said:

    I think it's a really nice looking set. The initial leaked photo made it look somehow less detailed than what I now see... (snip)
    My gripe is that it feels a little overpriced, to be expected because it's UCS. (snip) ...But I do like the set and if it were a little cheaper and I had more disposable income I would strongly consider purchasing.

    Agreed & Echoed.

    I'd add that I also feel the UCS tag, fancy box, 'deluxe' instructions, and TLG's unusually eager response to the UCS 'issue' sound like so much sales patter issued purely to justify an inflated price tag, and one that I'd go so far as to suggest not everyone at TLG were entirely comfortable with. Why? Well, such ephemera (which ultimately adds no real value to the actual lego on display/played with/contained within) suggests TLG might be feeling a bit touchy/uncertain of it themselves this time, as though there's been some disagreement, and they've felt the need to throw more at it as a result. It's possibly being closely monitored as a litmus test to see just how far they can push... I have no hard facts, it's just a sense i suddenly have.

    --

    To Power functions, my personal view is the same as others, a missed opportunity.
    They didn't need to include any, but the thought must have crossed their minds to power it somewhere. So I'd like a pro-designer (who knows about this stuff) to have taken the trouble to at least show the novice just one possible solution - doesn't have to be the best, just A way.
    Put it this way, I won't buy a pile of PF stuff 'on the off chance' it might work. But if they show me just one solution (and put that so-called 'deluxe what we did this summer' instruction booklet to some practical use), I'd then know it could be done, and so would happily buy those PF bits, knowing that my experiments might fail, but i can always fall back on their solution.
    And that IS the sort of added value that would make me reconsider the price, knowing i can do MORE with the set, purely thanks to a pro-designer's input.

    --

    To sum up my thoughts (other's may/will differ):
    A great looking set.
    Looks very nice from the outside, a little too much 'for impression' only (for me), and less a result of function which i would've preferred (example; 'windows' are not actually windows/can a fig fit up that ladder and through the doorway to get in?/any realistic access for a jawa to reach the cockpit? etc).
    I'm not overly struck by the use of space inside, it seems a lot is sacrificed for the sake of one crane arm. Little else that i can immediately remember. (I do need to look again, in case I'm missing something, but if i can't remember much... is that a bad sign? Is it so forgetable?).
    Stickers (I'm not a fan). Love the Jawas, but Luke & Owen have ugly faces.
    All the unsettling guff (and instant response from TLG) about the packaging/booklet has me feeling the opposite of what's intended. Sounds more like a clumsy magician's attempt at misdirection. (I don't display boxes or instruction books, I display/play with lego. If they're keen to sell me on how it's wrapped up, I begin to question whether they believe the set is real value).

    It IS a great set, and any of the above negative thoughts would be just minor quibbles in a standard priced set. So maybe I'm being too demanding, (a lot of people love it, and that's great) but for £250 I do need it to to offer more than just to look nice from a distance. At this price I need it to be the supercar of my lego collection, not just a value for money price per part efficiency ride. I want turbo, beautiful interiors, and a smooth ride.

    Oddly enough, I find a good test for anything expensive is to show non-fans. Will they go 'WOW, that's cool!', or look horrified and ask 'HOW MUCH!?'. This feels very much like a horrified "How Much!" set, that I would probably have to lie about to avoid raised eyebrows and looks of worried concern.

    ;oP
    Rainstorm26
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    legomatt said:

    Love the Jawas, but Luke & Owen have ugly faces.

    Luke is hideous (and I feel the Jawas are quite poor, too), but the Owen figure is flat out wrong. Why does this curmudgeonly fellow have a face print that screams 'happy-go-lucky'? Additionally, he seems to have the same problem as the recent Doc Ock, where they tried to print a light color on the dark legs and it came out looking atrocious. Logically, I feel like a simple overprint would fix that, but I obviously have no idea how/if this process could be applied to LEGO printing.
  • LegoManiaccLegoManiacc Member Posts: 116
    Not sure if I'll be getting this set, but I have to say, I find the designer videos very...charming. I love that they don't put "cold" pro speakers in front of the camera to unveil these. Jamie is the best of the bunch, but I like them all, good for them!
  • LegofanscottLegofanscott Member Posts: 622
    edited March 2014
    I really don't see how people are seeing the new packaging and instructions a negativity???

    I think Lego's aim was just to make it stand out from all the rest and look a bit fancier on the shelf, ive never understood why Lego had to have awful childish cheap looking "clone war" advertising on all original UCS sets.

    OK so it may be a sales ploy but does it really matter?, at the end of the day Lego are a business with one goal and that is to sell as many of their toys as they can.

    UCS sets are supposed to be special, that line was starting to be blurred with releases like the new UCS X-Wing

    One downside though, wheres the UCS plaque? :(




  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002

    I really don't see how people are seeing the new packaging and instructions a negativity???

    I think Lego's aim was just to make it stand out from all the rest and look a bit fancier on the shelf, ive never understood why Lego had to have awful childish cheap looking "clone war" advertising on all original UCS sets.

    OK so it may be a sales ploy but does it really matter?, at the end of the day Lego are a business with one goal and that is to sell as many of their toys as they can.

    UCS sets are supposed to be special, that line was starting to be blurred with releases like the new UCS X-Wing

    One downside though, wheres the UCS plaque? :(

    I think this 'at odds with itself' marketing is kind of what many are pointing to as LEGO trying to put an extra layer of polish on what is otherwise a pretty average set (of a pretty niche vehicle) with a hefty price tag.

    Traditionally, the Ultimate Collector's Series sets AREN'T playsets - they're display sets (this is also the crux of the debate as to whether or not #10188 is a UCS set). So I can at least see where people would get the impression that TLG wasn't necessarily confident in the set's ability to sell itself and so resurrected the UCS branding to give it a boost.
    FollowsCloselyTheLoneTensorAdeelZubair
  • RJAS1972RJAS1972 Lisbon - PortugalMember Posts: 24
    Although I've only returned to Lego a little more than a year ago I've been collecting the UCS models and have all since the Imperial Shuttle, and by all I mean by my definition of UCS, a display set with a plaque, something that we would see in a museum!
    I will continue to buy the UCS sets, by my definition, on day one. But this set, no matter what's written in the box, it's nothing more than a large piece count set. One I might consider in a really good promotion. A 30%+ promotion...
  • LegofanscottLegofanscott Member Posts: 622
    You Star Wars fans are obviously really hard to please xD

    Kind of unrelated but the Simpsons house is horrendously inaccurate compared to the original cartoon and looks really bad but no one seems to see it?

    All im getting at is apart from the power functions could lego have made a better job without the price/part count going through the roof.

    I guess they couldve made it more impressively bigger and just had the shell but then people would complain that it had no interior.

    The detail and accuracy of a UCS is there but with added interior for playability, those saying this is nothing but a big playset, what were you really expecting, something similar to the cuusoo model?

  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    edited March 2014
    The plaque is a strange omission. They could have been creative and mounted the plaque on a small brick built sand dune. Including a micro build sand crawler also would have been a nice touch.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited March 2014

    You Star Wars fans are obviously really hard to please xD

    Kind of unrelated but the Simpsons house is horrendously inaccurate compared to the original cartoon and looks really bad but no one seems to see it?

    All im getting at is apart from the power functions could lego have made a better job without the price/part count going through the roof.

    I guess they couldve made it more impressively bigger and just had the shell but then people would complain that it had no interior.

    The detail and accuracy of a UCS is there but with added interior for playability, those saying this is nothing but a big playset, what were you really expecting, something similar to the cuusoo model?

    The detail and accuracy of a UCW is there? I'm not seeing that it's anything more than a normal Lego set, just bigger and with a lot more pieces. Take #9493 for example. That set is pretty detailed (for Lego, of course), and although both are very different in price, I put it exactly on par with the Sandcrawler for accuracy. Both are decent looking sets, but neither are "museum quality" to borrow @RJAS1972's wording.

    I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I don't think the SC is a bad set per se (like the EV, I think it's a cool looking playset). I just think it's expensive for what you get, and missed a number of opportunities that could have taken it to the next level. Whatever label (UCS, Limited Edition, Exclusive, etc.) Lego decides to slap on the box is meaningless marketing noise to me. It's what's inside the box that counts.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    You Star Wars fans are obviously really hard to please xD

    Kind of unrelated but the Simpsons house is horrendously inaccurate compared to the original cartoon and looks really bad but no one seems to see it?

    The difference is the Simpsons House is $200.

    If the Sandcrawler had been $200, I doubt you'd be hearing any complaints. Even $250 would have been ok, but $300 or $350 is just too much.
    Rainstorm26
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098


    The detail and accuracy of a UCW is there? I'm not seeing that it's anything more than a normal Lego set, just bigger and with a lot more pieces. Take #9493 for example. That set is pretty detailed (for Lego, of course), and although both are very different in price, I put it exactly on par with the Sandcrawler for accuracy.

    I'm not sure which Sandcrawler that you are looking at. The new one has a ton of detail. Lots of greebling. I would prefer more tiling on the sides. I agree that they should have figured out how to incorporate windows into the cockpit area. Sticking trans-yellow tiles on looks a little lazy.

    Overall I don't see how you can be so harsh on the design. It works. It's the price point that most of us find fault in. But that's UCS pricing. And our opinion is clouded by the lack of exclusive discounting. If we all knew that down the road we could pick this set up for 20-30% off or a BOGO then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
    Dougout
  • CaptAPJTCaptAPJT Member Posts: 223
    I take but some of my initial criticisms, I buy LEGO to build and then display on my wall of UCS and I don't think it would look out of place underneath my SSD when viewed from across the room. However I would have liked a UCS Plaque, but maybe I'll make my own, if I buy it. That is the crux of it as a UCS collector, I only kind of want it, maybe if I can get it on sale. That coming from someone who's paid full price for other UCS models including the B-Wing with no questions asked might be a cause for concern for LEGO, if I'm not sure about it what chance do they have of getting little Timmy's parents to drop $350 on it?

    Could the re-instatement of the UCS branding on boxes be a psychological thing for collectors? Or is it just TLG answering any debate on what makes the set a UCS before it begins "It's UCS because it says it on the box!"

    It's nice TLG let the designers do the video, but I did find it a little cringeworthy, I'm sure a bit of scripting and proper direction would have made it that much more professional.
  • BastaBasta Australia Member Posts: 1,259
    edited March 2014
    Have liked this set since I saw it, but as others have said it does not fit with the traditional UCS sets.

    Once I build a large set, it sits on a shelf for display. So for me I would have been happy with no internals or Minifigures, they could have then used more pieces to really add details to the outside, including proper windows.

    That being said, I realise TLG will sell more as a play set and with a tonne of Minifigures, so it is what it is.

    Unfortunately it seems that really large, purely designed for display type sets may be few and far between (as they already are I suppose).

    Personally I wish they didn't call this one an UCS, as now I'm torn. I stayed away from The Death Star and Ewok Village as they are play sets not UCS to my mind, but I do like this set, so it may go on the list any way. Just not sure if I should display it with my other UCS sets. (First world problems!)

    Salve 1 better be substantial and come with a stand and plaque :p

    (NOTE: I'm not hating on the Sandcrawler as I think it's an excellent set, it's just not what I would consider to be an UCS set).
    FollowsClosely
  • legomattlegomatt Member Posts: 2,548
    edited March 2014
    Basta said:

    Salve 1 better be substantial

    Indeed. We could all do with some healing balm for these price-inflicted wounds.

    (Joking aside)
    I'm starting to feel the consensus from all camps is the set has enough going for it to appeal to several crowds (or aspects of the hobby), and we're all politely acknowledging that much... but equally, by appealing to both aspects, it shortchanges both. The discussion/differences appear to be pulling in those directions.

    As a mainly playset/fig person, I'd like to know how to add PF (if possible), I'd like proper interiors, stairs/elevators, proper windows, that typical lego whimsy, much nicer figs, and a much lower price. As a playset, I don't feel there's enough going on at the price. But it's a great model.

    However, the display collector might say screw that, I want it to look as close to the movie-screen as humanly possible, the bigger and more detailed the better, I don't care how the internal skeleton achieves that effect, price be damned for such Lego perfection. As a movie-accurate display collector, I don't feel there's enough of that for the price. But it's a great model.

    So it would appear we have a something of a crossbreed set. A playset doing its best to appeal/masquerade as a collectors piece (or vice versa), and struggling to justify its price to all sides. Both camps reeling at the price for what it delivers on each aspect.

    Best of both worlds, or expensive taster?

    For me... I'm hoping for a Jawa Sandcrawler Microfighter :oD
    (I can just about afford that). :oP
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    legomatt said:


    However, the display collector might say screw that, I want it to look as close to the movie-screen as humanly possible, the bigger and more detailed the better, I don't care how the internal skeleton achieves that effect, price be damned for such Lego perfection. As a movie-accurate display collector, I don't feel there's enough of that for the price. But it's a great model.

    These are the people I don't get. Due to the inherent quality of Lego or any type of building block it's almost impossible to achieve a replica of the original model. Even a set like the UCS Imperial Shuttle has its faults in this regard. Looking at it from the side you can see the gaps between the Technic beams that secure the wings together. There's the rigid slopes that make up the nose and wings. There there's the studs. In my opinion if you want a realistic looking replica then Lego is not it. Your money and time would be better invested in scale modeling. The truth is that most of us don't have the skill or patience to glue and paint a large scale model so we rely on Lego sets. So in the end we have to accept that Lego is Lego and enjoy it for what it is. I just wish it wasn't so damn expensive.


  • LegofanscottLegofanscott Member Posts: 622
    edited March 2014
    mathew said:

    legomatt said:


    However, the display collector might say screw that, I want it to look as close to the movie-screen as humanly possible, the bigger and more detailed the better, I don't care how the internal skeleton achieves that effect, price be damned for such Lego perfection. As a movie-accurate display collector, I don't feel there's enough of that for the price. But it's a great model.

    These are the people I don't get. Due to the inherent quality of Lego or any type of building block it's almost impossible to achieve a replica of the original model. Even a set like the UCS Imperial Shuttle has its faults in this regard. Looking at it from the side you can see the gaps between the Technic beams that secure the wings together. There's the rigid slopes that make up the nose and wings. There there's the studs. In my opinion if you want a realistic looking replica then Lego is not it. Your money and time would be better invested in scale modeling. The truth is that most of us don't have the skill or patience to glue and paint a large scale model so we rely on Lego sets. So in the end we have to accept that Lego is Lego and enjoy it for what it is. I just wish it wasn't so damn expensive.


    Youve also got the fact that people are attracted to the charm of it being completely made out of Lego, the fact that nothing more than a pile of plastic bricks and plates can be stuck together to make a beautiful fully functioning model, and you realise the sheer ingenious building techniques Lego use and appreciate the amount of work that goes into designing them and the fun of building it all without the use of glue and paint. and of course the guaranteed impressive model you have at the end of it all, then if you eventually run out of shelf space you can break the parts down, store it away without worrying about breaking it, aswell as thousands of parts to reuse if your a MOCer

    There is really no skill at all involved in building these big Lego sets other than time and patience, you can't mess it up and children can get involved in the building process and playing with it, something that you cannot do with a scale model.








  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    ^ Agreed on all points. Except that I'm speaking of those people who build a set for display purposes only. Don't even get me started on those people who buy sets to just leave sealed in the box. Those types should love the new Sandcrawler.
    pharmjod
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.