 | | Re: Cudo's to 4910 and an Ugh to 4950
|
|
(...) I believe it is about 3 meters tall. Dunno how tall it'd be in Lego though. Jeff (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.underground, lugnet.reviews)
|
| |
| | Re: Cudo's to 4910 and an Ugh to 4950
|
|
(...) Not to beat the "not to scale" to death, but I was curious the other day, and calculated the height an AT-AT would be if that piece were used for the feet, and it was built to scale with the 'foot's width... It'd be about 20 centimeters tall. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.underground, lugnet.reviews)
|
| |
| | Re: Cudo's to 4910 and an Ugh to 4950
|
|
(...) But it could be useful as the top of an AT-AT foot, possibly. I don't like the way TLG has aggresively started to use this piece as a unibody for small vehicles. The only bad part about set #4910. Steve (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.underground, lugnet.reviews)
|
| |
| | Re: Cudo's to 4910 and an Ugh to 4950
|
|
Maybe if they marked the 4950 (and most of the Rock Raiders) line as ages 6-8 I wouldn't have such a problem with them. But as an overall value, these sets in general are awful. They just don't have that much building value - my 8 year old likes the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.underground, lugnet.reviews)
|
| |
| | Re: Cudo's to 4910 and an Ugh to 4950
|
|
(...) I agree that it looks like an AT-AT foot but it would be terribly out of scale I think. It might work better as an AT-ST or AT-PT foot. Eric Remove ".nospam" when replying by E-mail The New England LEGO Users Group (URL) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.underground, lugnet.reviews)
|
