 | | re: 2001 set info —Geordan Ballantree
|
| | | You guys are all saying that the new atst is going to suck because it is only $9.99, but a at-st at that price isn't even feasible. Could it be that there was a cut off at the begining of the price? I'm only a kid so I might be like totally wrong (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 2001 set info —Andrew Tyrone
|
| | | | | (...) Yeah. I really can't imagine an AT-ST for $10. You try making a AT-ST out of the Flash Speeder.... =\ -- Andrew, Agent 0007 (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 2001 set info —Greg Majewski
|
| | | | | (...) Hey, or maybe it was a misplaced decimal? UCS AT-ST for $99.99, anyone? (I'm not mocking you, by the way, in fact, I say you're most likely right or pretty close to it.) Greg "There was a guy... an underwater guy who controlled the sea... got (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 2001 set info —Tim Coats
|
| | | | (...) I have one reason why Lego may get the ATST under $10.00. Can you say Throwbot. Those are only $6.00 and would be not too much under ATST size, especially since the Lego one will be smallist anyway. Tim (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
