Ed Mack Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:12 PM, dcdfan said: $249.99 Expand So. Where does it mention that it is a UCS set? Quote
HandyHand Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Good news for my 75054s and 75049s ! Sounds like a bit similar in scope and size to the Episode VI Ewok Village. Not UCS, but large and detailed nonetheless. And similar in price. Quote
jaisonline Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:17 PM, bricketycricket said: I'm preparing for disappointment on this one. I'd love to be surprised and see this set have some display qualities but all signs point to a very expensive bundling of play sets. Expand i'm also disappointed but for diff reasons. even if it turns out to be the best Hoth set ever, it's still one of many hoth sets. i'm tired of hoth sets. hey lego, give us something new. Quote
dcdfan Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:18 PM, Ed Mack said: So. Expand They seem to be using it based the sticker price... Quote
Ed Mack Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:21 PM, dcdfan said: They seem to be using it based the sticker price... Expand Who? Quote
BrickLegacy Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 This sounds like a Star Wars Jokerland. I hope I'm wrong. 2 Quote
gobuffs98 Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 If it only has a snowspeeder there should be a lot of pieces to put towards the base. I would be cool if it was on display at the NY toy fair this weekend. Only 2 1/2 months away, we should see pictures soon. Quote
redghostx Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) Unimaginative Crappy [Lego Hoth] Set OR - Unimaginative Costly [Lego Hoth] Set Tada, it is now a UCS. Edited February 11, 2016 by redghostx **I am not judging, I am simply explaining the UCS acronym 5 Quote
jaisonline Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:28 PM, redghostx said: Unimaginative Crappy [Lego Hoth] Set Tada, it is now a UCS. Expand how can you say that? lately, lego has done a fine job with UCS sets. now if you typed "boo, another snowy hoth set" i would agree 100% i'm sure it will look great like the ewok village Quote
dcdfan Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:22 PM, Ed Mack said: Who? Expand This guy... Quote
Ed Mack Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 c On 2/11/2016 at 10:38 PM, dcdfan said: This guy... Expand Basically... Quote
Bold-Arrow Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Well what was everyone expecting ??? Minus the at-at 1 Quote
dcdfan Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:41 PM, Bold-Arrow said: Well what was everyone expecting ??? Minus the at-at Expand Exactly. I was already expecting lame so I wasn't let down... Quote
BrickLegacy Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:41 PM, Bold-Arrow said: Well what was everyone expecting ??? Minus the at-at Expand 6 Quote
Bold-Arrow Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:46 PM, BrickLegacy said: Expand U gonna need to add a coupe of zeros Quote
redghostx Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 10:31 PM, jaisonline said: how can you say that? lately, lego has done a fine job with UCS sets. now if you typed "boo, another snowy hoth set" i would agree 100% i'm sure it will look great like the ewok village Expand I immediately edited my post to clarify that I am not judging the set but I am explaining the acronym. 1 Quote
Popular Post Mos_Eisley Posted February 11, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 11, 2016 How is there an assault on the base without an AT-AT (or at least one available for sale in the current set line-up)?! It should be called Wednesday at Hoth Base. 14 Quote
inversion Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) On 2/11/2016 at 10:59 PM, Mos_Eisley said: How is there an assault on the base without an AT-AT (or at least one available for sale in the current set line-up)?! It should be called Wednesday at Hoth Base. Expand According to the description this is some kind of a starter set as a base for MOC-s. Incomplete on purpose. You have to buy and build the rest yourself. I don't think it will be good anyway. Just sounds too disconnected. Edited February 11, 2016 by inversion grammar Quote
Mos_Eisley Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 11:03 PM, inversion said: According to the description this is some kind of a starter set as a base for MOC-s. Incomplete on purpose. You have to buy and build the rest yourself. I don't think it will be good anyway. Just sounds too disconnected. Expand What fools would know this set is in the pipeline and then discontinue the most obvious and easiest $130 add-on set?! This had to be one of the dumbest moves ever done by them. 6 Quote
inversion Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 11:08 PM, Mos_Eisley said: What fools would know this set is in the pipeline and then discontinue the most obvious and easiest $130 add-on set?! This had to be one of the dumbest moves ever done by them. Expand I think they wanted to release this last year, but bumped into some sort of issues with it and had to delay it. Rumors began in January about a fall release. Still strange, because they could have saved the AT-AT. 1 Quote
Alpinemaps Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 And not just the AT-AT, but the Snowspeeder as well. 3 Quote
jaisonline Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 11:08 PM, Mos_Eisley said: What fools would know this set is in the pipeline and then discontinue the most obvious and easiest $130 add-on set?! This had to be one of the dumbest moves ever done by them. Expand i don't understand it either unless a UCS AT-AT is in the design phase or the prev. AT-At was a bad seller. if it was a bad selling set then maybe lego delayed this hoth set to make changes (make it more appealing)? Quote
thoroakenfelder Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Unless they needed to clear the path for a Rogue One branded AT-AT. 1 Quote
Mos_Eisley Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 11:11 PM, jaisonline said: i don't understand it either unless a UCS AT-AT is in the design phase or the prev. AT-At was a bad seller. Expand Maybe it was a bad seller as a stand alone set(I doubt it but possible). But I know a way to improve its sales either way - release a base for it to attack! 1 Quote
jaisonline Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 11:14 PM, thoroakenfelder said: Unless they needed to clear the path for a Rogue One branded AT-AT. Expand nice point. also could be a a Rebels one. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.