 | | Re: Why the Star Wars license isn't always good for builders
|
|
(...) It seems like you are irked at others good fortune and smart buying. I mostly disagree with what you have said. Buying Legos and putting them away for the future does not preclude buying stocks and investing in your 401K. It is not an either (...) (16 years ago, 8-Sep-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the Star Wars license isn't always good for builders
|
|
Hey Steve, You are correct in that my main frustration is not knowing at the time that the parts would be useful and then finding out later that they cost far more than what I would deem they're worth because of something that really has no bearing (...) (16 years ago, 8-Sep-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the Star Wars license isn't always good for builders
|
|
I have to agree with Adrian on this one. If you'd wanted those parts, you could have bought up on the set, and then sold off the parts you didn't want. I think the parts are expensive because they only appeared once, there were only 3 of them in a (...) (16 years ago, 8-Sep-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the Star Wars license isn't always good for builders
|
|
That's quite a rant. I am, however of a different opinion than you. I'm perfectly happy to prey on crazy Star Wars fanboys who pay a premium for the figs if it means I can buy a Star Wars set, use all the elements in it, and sell the figs on (...) (16 years ago, 7-Sep-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Why the Star Wars license isn't always good for builders
|
|
It's entirely possible that this particular equine corpse has been beaten so many times that you could read newsprint through it, but I have to get this out. If it's already been discussed ad nauseum, please just move on. After browsing Bricklink (...) (16 years ago, 7-Sep-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Vignette - Requiem.
|
|
(...) That would be three modern/future weapons. Star Wars is a long time ago. Cheers Richue Dulin CO Legeaux FUT .starwars, but please consider your FUT if replying. (16 years ago, 19-Aug-08, to lugnet.build.military, lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) Ironically, I have not yet had the chance to buy the motorized AT-AT (and I missed the first one), so I had not seen that a T-bar was built into that design as well. It does make me wonder, now, how exactly they got those lumbering beasts down (...) (16 years ago, 13-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) Well, you sorta got the link right, but the video is no longer available. If you are posting in Plain Text format, any full URL will automatically show up as a hyperlink (at least when viewed through the LUGNET website). If you're doing it in (...) (16 years ago, 13-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I've started using it for that as well, but more out of necessity than choice. The previous version has a lift-off top, but if you grab it just a little below that level in the center, it picks up quite easily. With this one, every time (...) (16 years ago, 13-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) *snip* I would agree it is a handle to cary it. There is a video in Youtube during the Toy Fair 2008 were the model is beign demonstrated, and the guy showing it (not sure if a Lego guy or some other dude) does use it for that. Here is the (...) (16 years ago, 12-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) I haven't had the pleasure of building the AT-TE just yet. I have to wait until X-mas until Stacy will let me have mine. However, the feature you describe sounds very similar to the handle that was incorporated into the 10178 Motorized Walking (...) (16 years ago, 12-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
(...) I've found that T-handle to be a remarkably effective way to carry your AT-TE around...as for a Gunship carryall, I have no idea, but it would be fun to make one as a MOC, wouldn't it? Scott (16 years ago, 12-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Unused "feature" in 7675 Clone Wars AT-TE?
|
|
I recently built the new AT-TE (one of the least interesting Republic/Imperial war machines as far as I'm concerned), and aside from the loss of the speederbike in the trunk, and 75% of the crew (if they want to use the main cannon, the pilot will (...) (16 years ago, 11-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: 3839a resurrected in #7662? Someone please verify?
|
|
(...) I don't know about the handle length issue, but the Type A plate has handles that are centered vertically on the plate, and which do not meet flush with the bottom of the plate. The Type B plate has handles that are slung lower and blend into (...) (16 years ago, 4-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: 3839a resurrected in #7662? Someone please verify?
|
|
(...) In the Type I version the rods are slightly longer and have a different position vertically. I can't remember if they're higher or lower than Type II. I thought Clark had an illustrative picture in his BrickShelf gallery, but I can't find it. (16 years ago, 4-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: 3839a resurrected in #7662? Someone please verify?
|
|
(...) How can one tell the difference? In any case, here is what is in my Trade Federation MTT™ (URL) (16 years ago, 4-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | 3839a resurrected in #7662? Someone please verify?
|
|
Hey all, While composing some HTML related to the variations of part #3839a, Plate 1 x 2 with Handles Type 1 (a Classic Space part), I was shocked to discover on Peeron that this part was apparently made in dark bley in this set! This seems to me to (...) (16 years ago, 4-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | AT-ST Alternate Micro Models: Three Well-Known Starships
|
|
Here are (URL) for a trio of popular starships you can build with pieces from the (URL) 7657 AT-ST> set: the Battlestar Galactica, the USS Enterprise from Star Trek, and the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars. You can build all three at once. (URL) (...) (16 years ago, 4-Aug-08, to lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.cad, lugnet.space, lugnet.starwars, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Clone Wars V-19 and Gunship are spiffy!
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Kyle Beatty wrote: ... (...) (URL) (16 years ago, 3-Aug-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Clone Wars V-19 and Gunship are spiffy!
|
|
(...) It looks like the "hydraulic" piston from set 8448 (except without the spring): [LDrawPart 32181c02:0] It's cool that they've made more. :) Steve (16 years ago, 29-Jul-08, to lugnet.starwars, FTX)
|
