 | | Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
I finally found some 2001 SW stuff at Target yesterday. I grabbed a couple of the Escape pods and one of the 7127 AT-ST's.....does anyone else think that this set REALLY sucks? (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) It's not a great AT-ST, but it's excellent for parts. I plan on buying many as soon as they go on sale. Same goes for the Escape Pod. Main model bad, parts good. Jeff J (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) I don't personally care for the looks of the AT-ST, but I have bought four of them for the parts. Parts I like: -1x2 plate with click-hinge joint -New cylindrical click-hinge extensions -decorated 2x2 round tiles -gray canopy extension -dk (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) Why is it nearly every set non-UCS this year can be described in these terms? What happened to the good ol' days when LEGO produced sets that were good *and* were good part sources? Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) **snip of parts Mark likes** I'm also quite favorably disposed to the 1x4 brick with 4 side studs, not to mention the inverted 2x2 slope with viewscreen. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) To be honest, I LIKE the AT-ST. No, it's not a wonderful set overall. For $10, however, it is. If you can manage to prop the legs in the correct position, it can walk fairly well, and I think the way they have the hatch is set up nicely. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) The AT-ST only sucks on three points in my opinion: (1) No Stormtrooper , (2) No AT-ST Driver, (3) The head does not turn left and right. I can correct the last myself, but the other two make upgrades expensive. On other bad news (relatively) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) The 1x4 is nice, but I find the viewscreen kind of annoying because it isn't nonspecific enough to use in any MOC. You'd have to use it in something that's attacking an AT-ST. ;^) ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) --> thomas weigle | w.i.m.p. web: (URL) .iMMersE your soUL in LOVE. (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(Always great to hit the send button by mistake... Anyway,) (...) How about the shuttle and TIE from the 2001 line and the MTT from 2000? IMHO they're great models, and from what I've heard from others they're great part repositories. As for model (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) Well, I'd agree that it can only be used in certain SW MOCs. You could use it in an Imperial Base, for example, checking on the progress of a partol or something. eric (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) I like it too. The model's not bad, for the price point, and it is roughly to scale. I wish it came with a Stormtrooper or two, but c'est la vie. eric (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) Okay, those are good models, but they're in the vast minority in a two-year release schedule, so my question still stands. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinion on 2001 sets
|
|
(...) But at least we weren't given an ewok. (...) But at least we weren't given an ewok. (...) This is the major flaw of the model. IMO, the legs/feet are decent, and the head is quite good (except for the interior, which is really slapdash.) The (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | What? No Ewoks?
|
|
(...) Oh, you must've gotten the AT-ST without the stickers. A few boxes slipped past Lego Quality Control without them. Here's a scan of the sticker sheet for the AT-ST. They go on the bottom of the feet. :) (URL) YES, I have too much time on my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars) !
|
| |
| | Re: What? No Ewoks?
|
|
...and, sorry they're not to scale. I know some of you Ewok fans out there are eager to print these out. I painted something similar on the bottom of my Ertl AT-ST Snap-Titea couple of years ago. - Sean (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What? No Ewoks?
|
|
(...) <Mr Burns> Eeeeexcellent. </Mr Burns> ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What? No Ewoks?
|
|
(...) Nice to know that there are others with a similar sense of humor.......as my wife wonders why I am laughing uproariously....... John (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What? No Ewoks?
|
|
(...) LOL... if only Lego would really do something like that... of course I doubt Lucasfilm would allow it. It's too bad Jar-Jar never met up with an AT-AT... I'd love to see him squashed under foot... >:) -Bryan hobartrus@hotmail.com (URL) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What? No Ewoks?
|
|
(...) <Ms. Krabapple> Ha! </Ms. Krabapple> eric (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
