To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.starwarsOpen lugnet.starwars in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Star Wars / 9592
9591  |  9593
Subject: 
Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.starwars
Date: 
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:27:29 GMT
Viewed: 
705 times
  
Rick Hallman wrote:

That stinks. We need a ... minifig scale ATAT. with 2 pilots, 10 ST, and an
officer (Veers).

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 willing to bet the money I intend to spend on the DSDK that loads
of people will complain about size, features, colors, etc...

Which is really why Lego is MOCable. ;-)

Very weak.

Apart from the AT-AT, what other Imperial sets should they have made?

Dear Lego....Get the clue. We don't want watto! We want..err..Stormtroopers!!

Yes, apparently a lot of "heavy" users want stormtroopers.
I bet some kids want Watto, though...

Just as lots of kids wanted Jar-jar.

T.
--> thomas weigle  |  w.i.m.p.
    web: http://www.ya-ba.net/
------------------------------>
  .iMMersE your soUL in LOVE.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
 
(...) 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)

14 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR