LEGO Unveils New Ultimate Collector's Series Tie Fighter

LEGO Unveils New Ultimate Collector's Series Tie Fighter

The new Ultimate Collector's Series Tie Fighter will contain 1,685 pieces and retail for $199.99 in the United States.

You kind of have to feel bad for the poor Tie Fighter. Essentially the cannon fodder of the Star Wars universe, it's the sort of ship that just reeks of having been designed for the sole purpose of cheap and easy mass production. Outclassed by almost everything else in the franchise, it's basically the last thing you'd want to be stuck flying if you found yourself in one of those epic space battles fans love so much. Fragile as it may be however, it still makes for a really cool LEGO set.

That, at least, is our take from the recently unveiled LEGO Ultimate Collector's Series Tie Fighter. Revealed in a Friday at announcement at Toy Fair 2015, the new construction set will take the classic fighter and transform it into a highly detailed LEGO model complete with a plaque and a display stand. Slated to release in the United States in May 2015 and retail for $199.99, the completed model will measure 19.5 inches tall, a foot long and just over a foot wide. The fighter itself will come equipped with a working top hatch and an exclusive Tie Fighter Pilot mini-figure that won't be available anywhere else. According to released box art, the set will include 1,685 individual bricks. This is about 300 less than the identically priced UCS Slave 1.

Personally being a fan of the Tie Fighter's simple design, the announcement of this new set is something I'm sincerely excited about. Granted, its price kind of puts it out the range of things I could actually buy, but I can still dream of the day that my bank account might have enough cushion to survive purchasing something so frivolously awesome. What do you think of the new UCS Tie Fighter? Will you be buying one come May or will you be passing on this symbol of Imperial power?

Permalink

What the hell have you been watching where the Tie Fighter is ineffective? Those buggers wiped out twenty-seven Rebel fighters in A New Hope fighting on even terms. Granted they had Darth Vader, but then the Rebels had Wedge and Luke.

The idea that the Tie Fighter is a terrible ship comes from the Expanded Universe, and even there, in a good pilot's hands it can run circles around most Rebel fighters because its so damn maneuverable.

Soviet Heavy:
What the hell have you been watching where the Tie Fighter is ineffective? Those buggers wiped out twenty-seven Rebel fighters in A New Hope fighting on even terms. Granted they had Darth Vader, but then the Rebels had Wedge and Luke.

The idea that the Tie Fighter is a terrible ship comes from the Expanded Universe, and even there, in a good pilot's hands it can run circles around most Rebel fighters because its so damn maneuverable.

It's not that it's inefficient, it's that it is weak. It has no shields and no hyperdrive, in addition to being cheaply made in mass numbers.

It's essentially just an engine with guns slapped on to the front of it. The pilot's suit is his life support system. I'm getting Space Madness just thinking about piloting one of those.

Isn't the Tie fighter based on how the Japanese Zero fighter was used?

Also LEGO do better video adds copying Bandai will work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5zg29DQK7g&index=7&list=LL3-msr26XwiAvcOy8WGKgTw

Objectable:

Soviet Heavy:
What the hell have you been watching where the Tie Fighter is ineffective? Those buggers wiped out twenty-seven Rebel fighters in A New Hope fighting on even terms. Granted they had Darth Vader, but then the Rebels had Wedge and Luke.

The idea that the Tie Fighter is a terrible ship comes from the Expanded Universe, and even there, in a good pilot's hands it can run circles around most Rebel fighters because its so damn maneuverable.

It's not that it's inefficient, it's that it is weak. It has no shields and no hyperdrive, in addition to being cheaply made in mass numbers.

Dude, the lack of hyperdrive is something the pilots take pride in. Shields? They don't need no stinkin' shields.

True they have no shields and little armor, but they can fly circles around most other fighters of their era. They wiped out most Rebel fighters at the Battle of Yavin. The lack of hyperdrive, while requiring them to launch from a carrier, planet or base, also means they have less mass, are more more maneuverable, and cheaper to produce.

Plus, if you survived long enough flying one you get bumped up to a TIE Interceptor.

Ouch, $200 is a little much for a TIE fighter. I wish they would make Vader's TIE Advanced and set it at that price.

If I had the $200, I'd rather get the Slave 1 and recreate the scene where after being told to "put Captain Solo in the cargo hold" by Boba Fett, the dock worker retorts with a sarcastic "What? You don't want him sitting next to you, so you can pretend feed him cookies and wampa milk on the way home?" Also, it looks bigger, not counting the Tie's wingspan. I just see more value in the Slave 1.

Queen Michael:
Dude, the lack of hyperdrive is something the pilots take pride in. Shields? They don't need no stinkin' shields.

I think the pilots that ask for shields end up being force choked or a charred corpse.

Queen Michael:

Objectable:

Soviet Heavy:
What the hell have you been watching where the Tie Fighter is ineffective? Those buggers wiped out twenty-seven Rebel fighters in A New Hope fighting on even terms. Granted they had Darth Vader, but then the Rebels had Wedge and Luke.

The idea that the Tie Fighter is a terrible ship comes from the Expanded Universe, and even there, in a good pilot's hands it can run circles around most Rebel fighters because its so damn maneuverable.

It's not that it's inefficient, it's that it is weak. It has no shields and no hyperdrive, in addition to being cheaply made in mass numbers.

Dude, the lack of hyperdrive is something the pilots take pride in. Shields? They don't need no stinkin' shields.

So kinda like the A6M Zero then?

Please do remind me how the A6M Zero faired against the F6F Hellcat (known as the "Zero Killer" by its pilots).

The Zero was built under the assumption that a good defense was a powerful offence. So it had no armour, and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

The Hellcat on the other hand was a balanced package meant to operate cohesively with the rest of the force. It had radios, it had armour, it had self-sealing fueltanks, it had a flexible mission-package (whether it be droptanks, bombs, rockets, or a mix of them).

Personally I'd rather be in the T-65 (Hellcat) than the TIE (Zero).

MrFalconfly:

So kinda like the A6M Zero then?

Please do remind me how the A6M Zero faired against the F6F Hellcat (known as the "Zero Killer" by its pilots).

The Zero was built under the assumption that a good defense was a powerful offence. So it had no armour, and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

The Hellcat on the other hand was a balanced package meant to operate cohesively with the rest of the force. It had radios, it had armour, it had self-sealing fueltanks, it had a flexible mission-package (whether it be droptanks, bombs, rockets, or a mix of them).

Personally I'd rather be in the T-65 (Hellcat) than the TIE (Zero).

You are talking about different generations of aircraft it's not a fair comparison as the Hellcat was built to beat the already old Zero which for it's day was very good but the Japanese didn't replace it soon enough so it went up against far more modern planes.

P-89 Scorpion:

MrFalconfly:

So kinda like the A6M Zero then?

Please do remind me how the A6M Zero faired against the F6F Hellcat (known as the "Zero Killer" by its pilots).

The Zero was built under the assumption that a good defense was a powerful offence. So it had no armour, and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

The Hellcat on the other hand was a balanced package meant to operate cohesively with the rest of the force. It had radios, it had armour, it had self-sealing fueltanks, it had a flexible mission-package (whether it be droptanks, bombs, rockets, or a mix of them).

Personally I'd rather be in the T-65 (Hellcat) than the TIE (Zero).

You are talking about different generations of aircraft it's not a fair comparison as the Hellcat was built to beat the already old Zero which for it's day was very good but the Japanese didn't replace it soon enough so it went up against far more modern planes.

A6M5 Type 0 Model 52

Designed in 1943, the year the Hellcat was introduced.

Or we could say that instead of the F6F the X-Wing is analogous to the P40 Warhawk.

Which was introduced in 1938 (two years before the Zero).

And if memory serves me right, the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero (not to mention that the P40 could also be outfitted with bombs).

MrFalconfly:

P-89 Scorpion:
[quote="MrFalconfly" post="7.870752.21822924"]

You are talking about different generations of aircraft it's not a fair comparison as the Hellcat was built to beat the already old Zero which for it's day was very good but the Japanese didn't replace it soon enough so it went up against far more modern planes.

A6M5 Type 0 Model 52

Designed in 1943, the year the Hellcat was introduced.

Or we could say that instead of the F6F the X-Wing is analogous to the P40 Warhawk.

Which was introduced in 1938 (two years before the Zero).

And if memory serves me right, the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero (not to mention that the P40 could also be outfitted with bombs).

Your comparing a slightly modified airframe and engine to a whole new aircraft with a much newer engine.

Also "the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero" and the reverse is true as the P40 losses show while the Hellcat on the other hand out performed the Zero so completely that even a skilled Zero pilot was screwed.

Sorry when did this become a World War 2 Flame war?

P-89 Scorpion:

MrFalconfly:

P-89 Scorpion:
[quote="MrFalconfly" post="7.870752.21822924"]

You are talking about different generations of aircraft it's not a fair comparison as the Hellcat was built to beat the already old Zero which for it's day was very good but the Japanese didn't replace it soon enough so it went up against far more modern planes.

A6M5 Type 0 Model 52

Designed in 1943, the year the Hellcat was introduced.

Or we could say that instead of the F6F the X-Wing is analogous to the P40 Warhawk.

Which was introduced in 1938 (two years before the Zero).

And if memory serves me right, the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero (not to mention that the P40 could also be outfitted with bombs).

Your comparing a slightly modified airframe and engine to a whole new aircraft with a much newer engine.

Also "the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero" and the reverse is true as the P40 losses show while the Hellcat on the other hand out performed the Zero so completely that even a skilled Zero pilot was screwed.

Still maintain given the design philosophy the TIE fighter is very much an A6M Zero equivalent. It's designed to be as light as possible, to be as agile as possible with a reasonable heavy weapon-load at the detriment of other factors like survivability.

MrFalconfly:

Still maintain given the design philosophy the TIE fighter is very much an A6M Zero equivalent. It's designed to be as light as possible, to be as agile as possible with a reasonable heavy weapon-load at the detriment of other factors like survivability.

In regards to the Tie fighter being based on the Zero's design philosophy on that we can agree.

Survivability on the other hand is a matter of debate the Zero relied on being maneuverable (the escapists spell check does not like this word) enough to not be hit to allow it to survive which is a method still employed today in many different types of military vehicles.

Also the Zero first flew in 1939 the USA style self-sealing fuel tank wasn't invented till 1941 (earlier types were only proof against rifle calibre ammunition not the .50cal and 20mm that aircraft were using at the time).

I wasn't expecting the comments to be an argument about the validity of the TIE fighter's tactics.
I was hoping someone would point out the differences between the classic LEGO TIE fighter and the new model.
I guess I could do it though...

New: http://cdn.escapistmagazine.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/885/885415.png
Old: http://theplasticbrick.com/images/view/large/12649.jpg

The older model had blue highlights, while the current one is more accurate to the movie with grey highlights.
The older model was also smaller, and didn't have a stand.
The older model also didn't have an opening rear hatch, and the wings were far easier to break off.

Overall, the new one is a bit bigger, and with the addition of the stand, it's harder to fit on shelves, but far sturdier, and more accurate to the films.

"0/0. Is made of LEGO."

MrFalconfly:

P-89 Scorpion:

MrFalconfly:

So kinda like the A6M Zero then?

Please do remind me how the A6M Zero faired against the F6F Hellcat (known as the "Zero Killer" by its pilots).

The Zero was built under the assumption that a good defense was a powerful offence. So it had no armour, and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

The Hellcat on the other hand was a balanced package meant to operate cohesively with the rest of the force. It had radios, it had armour, it had self-sealing fueltanks, it had a flexible mission-package (whether it be droptanks, bombs, rockets, or a mix of them).

Personally I'd rather be in the T-65 (Hellcat) than the TIE (Zero).

You are talking about different generations of aircraft it's not a fair comparison as the Hellcat was built to beat the already old Zero which for it's day was very good but the Japanese didn't replace it soon enough so it went up against far more modern planes.

A6M5 Type 0 Model 52

Designed in 1943, the year the Hellcat was introduced.

Or we could say that instead of the F6F the X-Wing is analogous to the P40 Warhawk.

Which was introduced in 1938 (two years before the Zero).

And if memory serves me right, the P40 in the right hands was more than capable of outfighting a Zero (not to mention that the P40 could also be outfitted with bombs).

I always assumed the Y wing was more analogous to the P40. Pre war fighter still used to good effect by a skilled pilot. A little slow and clunky but tough and takes a pounding.

P-89 Scorpion:
Isn't the Tie fighter based on how the Japanese Zero fighter was used?

Also LEGO do better video adds copying Bandai will work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5zg29DQK7g&index=7&list=LL3-msr26XwiAvcOy8WGKgTw

And yeah, that is probably the worst of all the Lego designer videos. "It has a hatch!" Compare that to last weeks Helicarrier reveal. I'm kinda mixed on this one. I like Tie fighters, but this is pricey for a set that just seems exactly like their last minifig scale one, but bigger. I mean compared to the X Wing or Slave 1 it just seems a bit shallow for the price point. $120 or $130 I would grab this instantly. $199 Ummm maybe I'll get the Helicarrier instead.

faefrost:

I always assumed the Y wing was more analogous to the P40. Pre war fighter still used to good effect by a skilled pilot. A little slow and clunky but tough and takes a pounding.

I wouldn't call the P40 "clunky". It (and the P-36) had excellent medium and high-speed turning performance (it is only clunky compared to a Zero, but it's easily agile enough to fight Spitfire Mk II's and Bf-109 E4's).

The F4F Wildcat on the other hand. Sure it could take a beating, but it wasn't super fast, nor super manoeuvrable.

Well that escalate quickly.
Seriously, does everyone actually cares about the TIE Fighter overall performances aftering seeing episode 4-6??? (TIE Fighter drool, X-wing rules!)

OT- Man that is huge!!

The TIE Fighter is great, but the Interceptor blows it out of the water.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here