 | | Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Jason Fabisch
|
| | | So I look at the new sets and I see two Imperial craft, 3 if you count the AT-ST, which doesn't even come with an Imperial Officer or Pilot. The Junk Shop and Droid Transport can't count as it's the wrong movie. So that leads us with 2 ships, the (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | I don't think LEGO ever said that, no. I think that people said that after seeing the AT-ST, TIE fighter, and Imperial Shuttle on the leaked list, which we all now know to have been correct. eric (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Nicholas Fezie
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, Lego did say that in an interview over at FBTB (for the link go to (URL) And I think this is an imperial year. There are no rebel sets (besides the escape pod which isn't from Episode 1 by the way). So the year couldn't get any more (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Thomas Weigle
|
| | | | | | | (...) Their license runs to 2007, doesn't it? We'll probably see Ep4-6 sets for the remainder of that time, with sets for the new movies being promoted more heavily just after release of the movies. And the bigger sets seem to come later in the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Yeah! That would be very cool. Maybe 4 or 5 small sets with Technic connectors, and perhaps one larger set with a "landing bay" for the Falcon or TIEs. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Thomas Weigle
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The brilliant aspect of such sets is that they in a way become easier for kids to collect, and that the initial step would basically force parents into buying more of them later on. From a marketing perspective, very smart. From a collectors' (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm convinced that we're going to see a UCS A-Wing, maybe even next. Compact design. Maybe 700 pieces. Can be done in red and white, so cheap to produce with existing stock. Not many new molds necessary; maybe just a canopy. James (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Jason Fabisch
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I agree with you, but I think they will release them in pairs, like the Xwing and Tie Interceptor. These two are not comparable in performance as the TIE-Interceptor was designed to go against the Awing, so they are not pairing them up by a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd actually be suprised if they offer a Tie Bomber - again, not a tremendous recognition factor among non-enthusiasts. Granted, the Tie-Interceptor probably has less recognition than the standard Tie, but it also has better "lines," i.e. it's (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Bryan Hodges
|
| | | | | | | | (...) For UCS I'm putting my money on a Falcon, a TIE, an Imperial shuttle, and a Star Destroyer. Since there's no real scale to worry about with UCS sets, all of these are possible, and would make sense due to the "recognition factor." With any (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Who at LEGO said that? --Todd (24 years ago, 2-Nov-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Rick Hallman
|
| | | | (...) That stinks. We need a ... minifig scale ATAT. with 2 pilots, 10 ST, and an officer (Veers). (...) Very weak. (...) Dear Lego....Get the clue. We don't want watto! We want..err..Stormtroopers!! (...) God I hope not... Rick (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Thomas Weigle
|
| | | | | (...) What would you be willing to pay for that 13 minifig set, which should be roughly twice the size of the Falcon in order not to piss people off because of lacking scale etc? With a little luck, we'll get an AT-AT with some minifigs. And I'm (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Andrew Tyrone
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I want Watto, just in a lower cost set. >:o -- Andrew, Agent 0007 (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
