Review: 75440 AT-AT

How does it look with any of the many Advent Calendar Hoth micro builds? I realize the AC snow speeders are four wide and the one here is five-wide but I wonder if they're close enough to not matter.

I really wish the base had been white. I'll probably rebuild mine in white and expand it to make a larger diorama.

Other than the black base, which I find a little jarring and illogical, I really like this. The Snowspeeder is a brilliant addition.

The unnecessary nameplate irritates me a little too, as it obscures part of the AT-AT! I'd be omitting it from my build (when the discounts arrive).

@Tuppence442 said:
"The Snowspeeder build on this seems to be the same scale as the one in 2003's 4486 AT-ST & Snowspeeder, which could make that classic set a surprising companion piece to this latest one."

That brings up an issue I have with this set. I like the AT-AT well enough (in spite of the weirdly off proportions of the legs). The Snowspeeder I'm not entirely sold on. It really needs something to represent the forward bulge between the engines and the main guns. Unfortunately, it seems the clip-tile is half a plate too high to line up with the D-snot. The first version solved that easily by separating the forward portion of the wing from the engine block. Other than using the same trick, the only other solution I'm coming up with is to replace the D-snot with another clip-tile.

Can't wait to get and build it!

Hope there will be more vehicles added to the Starship Collection, cause this is great! Love these simple display pieces. They don't take up much space, are very well designed an in a good scale and just absolutely beautiful.

Amazing looking set. Great size. Lots of energy. Designer nailed it. IMHO.

I wasn’t a fan at first (and probably am still not) but I do like how the trans clear support gets hidden by the tow cable. I just think there’s so much else (at better value) to leverage my limited LEGO budget. To be honest, I’m more excited for BDP these days than many standard LEGO offerings.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @sjr60 said:
"And folks complain that F1 cars are all the same!"

In what way is this the same as anything we have had before? The vehicle has appeared many times before, of course, but the design is completely unique."
Star Wars obsessives everywhere say, 'Quite true. Totally different'. :-)

Great midi-scaled AT-AT.
Looks excellent and nice touch with the Snowspeeder.
A bit high of a price, little high, but will be on the Amazon lookout for their 20% off.

$30, take it or leave it.

Seems to me proportionally-wise the legs need another stud length added to both the top and bottom sections. Will give that mod a go once I manage to acquire a copy of this set.

And agree base would benefit better having a white color scheme than with black in this instance.

We have the butthole tiger and now the butthole AT-AT

$85 here, most overpriced piece of crap I've ever seen

Not bad not bad

…why did they not just take the excellent/stable (and well-valued) gingerbread model design and give it the original colors/printing? Without the unique Vader figure and the extra ropes/tiles from decorations, they could have easily tossed a couple more pieces into a slightly-scaled-up speeder for display, or instead for a fresh minifig-scale probe droid. Ditch the base and you could toss in a pilot and a snowstormie or two and easily match the original $60 price point instead of jacking it up.

This just comes off as a completely unnecessary redesign that crams in less functionality and less overall content despite them practically having a better option gift-wrapped in front of them.

@pteric said:"We have the butthole tiger and now the butthole AT-AT"

That's how it deploys stormtroopers: https://www.deviantart.com/leucophaeusolitaria/art/Untitled-1026827279

@Kalking said:
"…why did they not just take the excellent/stable (and well-valued) gingerbread model design and give it the original colors/printing? Without the unique Vader figure and the extra ropes/tiles from decorations, they could have easily tossed a couple more pieces into a slightly-scaled-up speeder for display, or instead for a fresh minifig-scale probe droid. Ditch the base and you could toss in a pilot and a snowstormie or two and easily match the original $60 price point instead of jacking it up.

This just comes off as a completely unnecessary redesign that crams in less functionality and less overall content despite them practically having a better option gift-wrapped in front of them."

If they'd done as you suggested, it would too big to fit in with the Starship Collection. I mean yes, it's not a starship, but this way, it would still fit in a display with the others. And they might well do more ground vehicles in the collection.

The midi-scale sets are ok. It's sad tgat they don't include any fun, unique figs. They're way overpriced, but quickly get reduced. I just don't have much appetite anymore for non-minifig compatible sets.

'A little overpriced' - If viewed with a non biased lense this is 20% overpriced

A white baseplate wouldve taken this 6/10 to a 7/10

@Kalking said:
"…why did they not just take the excellent/stable (and well-valued) gingerbread model design and give it the original colors/printing? "

Be...cause it has a lot of problems? The first of which is the giant s'more that's slapped on top:

https://images.brickset.com/news/125072_Gingerbread%2013.jpg

The three top armor plates should all come together cleanly, not with giant steps. The design is also incredibly simplistic, which is only disguised by all the icing, gumdrops, and light strings. The shaping is off, as was noted in the review. It's too big to fit in with the rest of the Starship Collection. And it's too fragile. It works well enough for what it is, but would look like a 4+ model if converted to greys.

@StyleCounselor:
I've hit a point in my SW collecting where I care more about detail and accuracy than minifig compatibility. If you want both, that pretty much limits you to the UCS line, and I've got higher priorities than trying to keep up with those. This series gives me exactly what I want at an affordable scale, and I can pick up a few other sets for the minifigs I want.

@KyloBen1012:
Methinks your lens is at least 10% too biased.

I'm surprised with all the typical nitpicking by Star Wars fans no one mentioned that the tow cable should be connected much lower than it is; on the ankle and not up on the shin. Jansen was a good shot! haha

I like the look of the set and will definitely pick it up... hopefully on sale.

Tiny tiny tiny for the price. PPP isn't useful if it's just a whole load of small pieces.

I somehow missed this announcement. Looks pretty solid for what they are going for. I’ll definitely wait for a sale, but that goes for all Lego these days.

@Spacefarer said:
"Tiny tiny tiny for the price. PPP isn't useful if it's just a whole load of small pieces."

Do you build MOCs? If you don't, then what's the difference, since it's just going to be a model on the shelf? And if you do, you should be all over those detail pieces.

If you look at the 3rd pic (completed model) which is of the legs - they look like singing robots covering their ears.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Spacefarer said:
"Tiny tiny tiny for the price. PPP isn't useful if it's just a whole load of small pieces."

Do you build MOCs? If you don't, then what's the difference, since it's just going to be a model on the shelf? And if you do, you should be all over those detail pieces."

Thanks for asking, I do in fact build MOCs! Drop a follow on Rebrickable if you want!

What's the difference: The model is extremely small for the price Lego wants you to pay. This was also the case with some of the other Starship Collection ships: Acclamator for 50 and Home One for 70. Since display is their main purpose, I feel this is a valid criticism. The review even acknowledges the small size in the final paragraph. If this were 40 RRP, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.

I should be all over these pieces: Not enough to pay 65 for 525 pieces, only a few of which are even rare enough to warrant stacking up in bulk, which I can do more efficiently on PAB. This becomes a justifiable parts pack at about half the original price.

The thing is, one of the reasons I like this line of models so much is that they aren’t that big. UCS and playscale are all well and good but space is finite and if at all possible I prefer not to break models down, so a nice set of mostly-accurate, detailed and not too big models is ideal.

So… I guess I’m saying I’m happy to pay a little more for a product when it’s the best-for-me version of itself, and I don’t think there’s a direct link between size and value (except in so far as bigger boxes cost more to get from a to b, I suppose). And I guess since they keep making them I’m not alone.

Dang.

It looks good, yes.

But it's a 25 - 30 bucks set, wouldn't you agree?

@CCC said:
" @ulibu said:
"Dang.

It looks good, yes.

But it's a 25 - 30 bucks set, wouldn't you agree?"

Sure it would be nice if it was that price, but 5c a part is very unrealistic."

Even just being sub-10c has been heavily outnumbered in the Star Wars theme for the last couple of years, so I agree that half that is vanishingly unlikely.

@Spacefarer:
I ask because usually I see that sort of complaint from (mostly older) people who strictly build sets, and see no value in the smaller detail elements that make modern LEGO sets look so amazing. Or if they do build MOCs, they build them strictly in the style of 1980's sets, and just don't care for modern elements.

Serious question, actually, since it keeps coming up: Do smaller pieces actually cost significantly less to produce, such that it would/should make a difference to price per piece, or is most of the cost in producing and maintaining the mould/something else regardless of the size of the piece? Assuming all single moulded pieces; obviously dual-moulding will cost more.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Spacefarer:
I ask because usually I see that sort of complaint from (mostly older) people who strictly build sets, and see no value in the smaller detail elements that make modern LEGO sets look so amazing. Or if they do build MOCs, they build them strictly in the style of 1980's sets, and just don't care for modern elements."

Ok, thank you for clarifying, I get where you're coming from! I like to think I'm still on the younger side and I'm always excited to see new specialized elements that enable me to design better/ more accurate models.

@Hiratha said:
"Serious question, actually, since it keeps coming up: Do smaller pieces actually cost significantly less to produce, such that it would/should make a difference to price per piece, or is most of the cost in producing and maintaining the mould/something else regardless of the size of the piece? Assuming all single moulded pieces; obviously dual-moulding will cost more. "

Part of that is going to depend on how complex the mold is. I can thing of some small parts that might well require more complex mold than certain large parts.

@jsutton said:
"Lovely set. Well worth £20. Can’t see in the review where the other £40 goes though. Is there a part 2?"

Ha ha. I’d say £30 is fair. Maybe mistaken for a GWP

@Hiratha said:
"Serious question, actually, since it keeps coming up: Do smaller pieces actually cost significantly less to produce, such that it would/should make a difference to price per piece, or is most of the cost in producing and maintaining the mould/something else regardless of the size of the piece? Assuming all single moulded pieces; obviously dual-moulding will cost more. "

Generally speaking, no. While some types of plastic can be very expensive, they’re not going to use that to make toys. You’re talking a few bucks per pound, max, and you can get a metric crapton of tiny parts out of a pound of plastic using hot runners. Labor, transportation, tooling, and utilities are each going to cost more.

To give you an idea how insignificant the weight of the part is toward the cost, ABS is pretty cheap (you can look up pricing on the internet). Polycarbonate (previously used for transparent parts) costs about twice as much as ABS. MABS costs slightly more than PC, but they’re saving enough money on eliminating the need for dual-tooling to offset the increased cost of plastic.

We’ve seen 8-up and even 10-up molds for 2x4 bricks before, but the most recent version I’ve seen is just a 4-up. Unless they ran 1x1 plates as at least a 12-up, they’re not using the same amount of plastic per shot, which means equal weights of parts are using unequal amounts of machine time.

@Spacefarer:
Age doesn’t technically mean anything. I’m older than minifigs, and I’m constantly on the lookout for new elements, both in terms of shape and color. Another member of my LUG who was born the same year as me was the same way growing up. We lived in different sides of the same state, but we both tried to get our hands on the larger pack-in catalog ASAP, both to see what new sets were coming out that year, and to see what new parts were being produced. And one important thing to remember about sets like this coming with small parts is that’s what makes those parts stay available on OPAB. If it’s not in a current or recent set, they delist the element from saleable inventory, and then you’re left having to squabble over what’s on Bricklink.

@TheOtherMike:
Indeed, the D-snot requires a minimum 3-section mold (top, bottom, and one side insert), while the 2x4 brick is as simple as they come (just top and bottom). Or look at the jump stud, or hand stud, or jiffy pop plate, and figure out how many sections either of those would require.

@PurpleDave said:" @TheOtherMike:
Indeed, the D-snot requires a minimum 3-section mold (top, bottom, and one side insert), while the 2x4 brick is as simple as they come (just top and bottom). Or look at the jump stud, or hand stud, or jiffy pop plate, and figure out how many sections either of those would require."

The jump stud is what I was thinking about. But What do you mean by "D-snot?" https://brickset.com/parts/design-3386? I'm assuming that by "Jiffy Pop plate," you mean https://brickset.com/parts/design-32828, correct me if I'm wrong.

I’ve been assuming the 1x1 plate with the clip on the side must have a complex mould, but I’m only partly basing it on the complex shape and more on how extremely gnarly the mould mark usually is compared to how they typically look on other pieces.

@Hiratha said:
" @TheOtherMike & @PurpleDave

Thanks both of you! So the whole “price per piece doesn’t mean anything because small parts” thing is not based on anything except emotion? Good to know.

(Not that emotional reactions are *meaningless* because they aren’t - how people feel about prices is how they feel. But since it isn’t one I share I can safely ignore it as a logical argument.)"

Dammit, didn’t do the math (that’s what I get for splitting the reply between two breaks). In order to use the same amount of plastic as a 4-up 2x4 brick mold (2.32g/pc), you’d need a 46-up 1x1 plate mold (0.2g/pc). So ~4x worse than that I said.

Ultimately, no metric that we can use will give you fair and unbiased data 100% of the time. To get that, we’d need internal usage data. I looked up 1x plates on OPAB two years ago. The price went up in order from 1x1 to 1x2 to 1x3 to 1x4 to 1x6 to 1x8 to…1x5?…to 1x10? 1x5 plates were new, they were rarely used in sets, and they probably expected to have to pay a larger percentage of the tooling on each part produced if they didn’t anticipate running the mold into the ground like a 1x2 plate mold. And we can’t see that info.

But we can anticipate stuff that skews the data, like molded dinosaur parts, bigfigs, baseplates, one-off molds (UCS Landspeeder windshield?), and electronics. Weight will be off balance with each of those, sure, but not a 1x5 plate, or a Legend of Zelda Ocarina. It doesn’t catch dual-molded parts, or prints, either. And if you can see stuff like that, you should know to expect the PPP to be higher than normal, without meaning you got fleeced.

But on the other side of things, I remember one particularly aggrieved individual complaining that the 200ish trans-green 1x1 tiles in the Dagobah diorama shouldn’t count because he “didn’t want them”. And he was one of the people who was unceasingly brandishing “Jang’s ‘price per stuff,’” except in cases where the set was his favorite thing ever. Then no metric mattered anymore because it was automatically deemed “worth it”.

@TheOtherMike:
Yup, you got them both. D-snot is a term we’ve been using in my LUG, but I don’t know if one of our members coined it. It’s shaped like a capital “D” when viewed from above, and the stud on the side is useful for SNOT construction. Jiffy Pop I either picked up here or New Elementary, but I know it’s got some sort of coffee-related nickname as well. And the hand-stud could also be called a Ring Pop.

@Hiratha said:
"I’ve been assuming the 1x1 plate with the clip on the side must have a complex mould, but I’m only partly basing it on the complex shape and more on how extremely gnarly the mould mark usually is compared to how they typically look on other pieces."

Which type? There’s one that holds a vertical bar, and one that holds a horizontal bar. Bricklink and OPAB are in disagreement over which is “vertical” vs “horizontal”, referring to either the clip or what it holds. The one that holds a vertical bar is stupid simple. Top and bottom mold covers both the plate and the clip. The one that holds a horizontal bar would need a top and bottom for the plate, but the entire side profile of the modern C-clip would need a side insert from one side. The other side could be formed by the top mold, with the side insert fitting inside of a cavity. Pre-linked chains is where things get really messy. And then when you look at dual-molded parts, you have to figure out which section has to be molded first, and how the second section gets added afterwards. For minifig arms, I’d say the forearm needs to be molded first, because it needs a pin of some sort to form the upper arm around. The forearm would be molded with a five-section mold, two would pull away when the first shot cools, and three more sections would clamp in place over the unfinished stub before the second shot is added. For the leg, I can’t remember which offhand, but either the foot or the thigh is fairly solid, so that would be the second half of the shot formed around another pin. Three-handed short legs are super easy, as the hips and feet are always the same color, so it’s just the knee that needs to be added with the second shot. So probably six sections for the first shot, two peel away, and two more pop into place to mold the knee. I’d have to look at a two-banded dual-molded short legs to figure out how that’s handled, because I don’t even know which half gets formed first.

I like "Jiffy Pop"! I've just been calling it the mini frying pan.

@Hiratha said:
" @TheOtherMike & @PurpleDave

Thanks both of you! So the whole “price per piece doesn’t mean anything because small parts” thing is not based on anything except emotion? Good to know.

(Not that emotional reactions are *meaningless* because they aren’t - how people feel about prices is how they feel. But since it isn’t one I share I can safely ignore it as a logical argument.)"

I was frequently compared to a Vulcan when I was younger (I havent been diagnosed with anything, but there's a *high* probability that I'm autistic), so I approve.

@560heliport said:"I like "Jiffy Pop"! I've just been calling it the mini frying pan."

The "coffee-related nickname" that @PurpleDave couldn't seem to remember was "espresso plate." I believe that's the most common nickname.

@PurpleDave said:
"We’ve seen 8-up and even 10-up molds for 2x4 bricks before, but the most recent version I’ve seen is just a 4-up."
I wonder if this is because TLG is using more colors than they used to. I did a quick look, and in 2015, the 2x4 brick was used in 22 colors across all sets, while in 2025, it was used in 38 colors.

@gearwheel said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"We’ve seen 8-up and even 10-up molds for 2x4 bricks before, but the most recent version I’ve seen is just a 4-up."
I wonder if this is because TLG is using more colors than they used to. I did a quick look, and in 2015, the 2x4 brick was used in 22 colors across all sets, while in 2025, it was used in 38 colors."

While colors could be at play, I think they’ve just realized you get better bang for your buck if you’re not wasting capacity on the machine or life of the mold. Take the Ocarina of Time. Tiny little part, only used in one giant set, doesn’t get run that frequently. If the only machine you have is set up to do a pound of plastic per shot, you’d need to tool up a mold that can produce hundreds of Ocarinas per shot to max out the capacity. And then you’d need to produce hundreds of millions of Ocarinas to use up the life of the mold. Or you could make a 4-up and only need to make a few million, but you’d be using just a couple percent of the capacity of your giant machine. Or you invest in small-capacity machines, make small molds, and use the full capacity of the machine as well as the entire life of the mold. And you’re doing that across hundreds or thousands of molds. If you need more capacity for that mold, make another mold and run them both. Or three, or four, or just dedicate one machine to cranking out that shape 24/7.

But when you end up with something like the 2006 Batman accessory pack, one shot produces the parts for one pack, so you can just dump the entire contents into a bag and seal it without having to sort anything. Or when you need to make a sculpted head for one set, you’re not wasting capacity or mold life, and you’re not wasting time and materials making a giant mold either. It doesn’t take much more work to produce two 4-up molds than it does to make one 8-up mold. In some cases, it may even be easier. As parts get more complex, and molds need more inserts and slides, the more parts you pack into the shot, the more complex that mold has to be. Molds need to be as compact as possible, not long and skinny. Making them compact means multiple rows and columns, and that severely restricts where you can work inserts into the design. For a 1-up mold, you can put inserts on all six sides, but for a 3x3 grid you can only reach the center cavity from top or bottom, and that much can be handled with a basic 2-section mold. Instead of inserts, now you might need to have hinged sections that lift out of the way as the part is ejected, and drop back into place with gravity.

I just realized that the LEGO image is so bad that it makes it look like the tow cable is wrapped around the cockpit. The pic from @Capnrex101 makes the snowspeeder look so much better.

I'm glad they kept it in the same style as the rest of the series by giving it a black base.