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 / 9606
9605  |  9607
Subject: 
Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.starwars
Date: 
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:23:31 GMT
Viewed: 
1298 times
  
Rick Hallman wrote:

> In lugnet.starwars, Jason Fabisch writes:
> > 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.
> 
> That stinks. We need a ... minifig scale ATAT. with 2 pilots, 10 ST, and an
> officer (Veers).
> 
> > So that leads us with 2 ships, the TIE and the Shuttle.  A little weak if you >ask me.
> 
> Very weak.
> 
> > Maybe later in the year they will announce a few more sets, one can only >hope. :(
> 
> Dear Lego....Get the clue. We don't want watto! We want..err..Stormtroopers!!

Actually, I want Watto, just in a lower cost set. >:o



--
Andrew, Agent 0007



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 (26 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
    

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