I just built around ten of these. I was boxing up my son’s Star Wars LEGO sets because he moved overseas and he wanted them in storage. He had gotten a whole bunch of these as giveaways at LEGO KidsFest over a decade ago.

Yesterday, I said:"It just occurred to me that two TFA sets have been RSotD, and both had Rey and depicted scenes on Jakku."

Apparently Huwbot noticed and said, "Yeah, I should be more varied in what I pick."

Hey, I have this one!

I don’t collect many Star Wars polybags, but after seeing TFA, I knew I had to get this one. Poe’s X-wing is one of my favorite ships in all of Star Wars.

Nice! I have this one, too. One of a very few sets from the sequel trilogy that I own.

They fly now?

So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”

@PurpleDave said:
"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle.

I like the colors on this one. And it doesn't destroy a chunk of your wallet the way a minifig scale one used to do (and now does again)

One of the few Star Wars builds in my display collection. The rest are mostly minifigures but I even don’t have many of them. Some SW minifigure parts are good for MOCing: https://flic.kr/p/2rP14Ay

@AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven.

@PurpleDave said:" @AustinPowers said:" @PurpleDave said:"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven."

I have a book that was published by TV Guide for Star Trek's thirtieth anniversary, and one of the articles in there quotes one of the people who worked on the show (I can't remember who) as saying something like, "Even when we know that the science is bogus, we try to at least keep it *consistently* bogus." And yeah, while I love both franchises (and am thus well aware of both of their flaws), I feel that Trek does a better job on that front.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:" @AustinPowers said:" @PurpleDave said:"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven."

I have a book that was published by TV Guide for Star Trek's thirtieth anniversary, and one of the articles in there quotes one of the people who worked on the show (I can't remember who) as saying something like, "Even when we know that the science is bogus, we try to at least keep it *consistently* bogus." And yeah, while I love both franchises (and am thus well aware of both of their flaws), I feel that Trek does a better job on that front."

Spock's Brain (or more specifically, the episode where he loses said brain) says hello to you all.

I had to read again 66 Star Wars sets in one year! With lots of micro fighter sets, which are a great way to build up your mini-fig and spacecraft, vehicle collection which means this set was probably over-looked.

@Murdoch17 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:" @AustinPowers said:" @PurpleDave said:"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven."

I have a book that was published by TV Guide for Star Trek's thirtieth anniversary, and one of the articles in there quotes one of the people who worked on the show (I can't remember who) as saying something like, "Even when we know that the science is bogus, we try to at least keep it *consistently* bogus." And yeah, while I love both franchises (and am thus well aware of both of their flaws), I feel that Trek does a better job on that front."

Spock's Brain (or more specifically, the episode where he loses said brain) says hello to you all."
That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi.

@Murdoch17 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:" @AustinPowers said:" @PurpleDave said:"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven."

I have a book that was published by TV Guide for Star Trek's thirtieth anniversary, and one of the articles in there quotes one of the people who worked on the show (I can't remember who) as saying something like, "Even when we know that the science is bogus, we try to at least keep it *consistently* bogus." And yeah, while I love both franchises (and am thus well aware of both of their flaws), I feel that Trek does a better job on that front."

Spock's Brain (or more specifically, the episode where he loses said brain) says hello to you all."

Brain and brain! What is brain?!

@ambr said:"I had to read again 66 Star Wars sets in one year! With lots of micro fighter sets, which are a great way to build up your mini-fig and spacecraft, vehicle collection which means this set was probably over-looked."

Kee[ in mind that that number includes multipacks, magazine gifts (which weren't available everywhere), and promotional sets (which also weren't available everywhere).

@AustinPowers said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:" @AustinPowers said:" @PurpleDave said:"So if I understand correctly, the S-foils of an X-Wing are supposedly meant to dump built up heat, a problem that only the B-Wing seemed to share during the OT. But then the ARC-170 doubled down on this as the S-foils on that fighter serve no obvious purpose during the PT. And then this thing comes along and says “half as much S-foil”. More than anything George did, this smacks of, “It doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it makes money.”"
Hey, we are talking Star Wars here. Since when does anything make sense in that universe other than as a means for making money?
At least Star Trek tried to keep things partially grounded in reality and having some of the tech make sense. In Star Wars, most of the tech makes very little sense if you look beyond the spectacle."

No, dude, there's a reason they call it treknobabble. Doing it with conviction doesn't make it any less BS, and Trek writers (especially the independent ones) loved to chase fringe science that would later become disproven."

I have a book that was published by TV Guide for Star Trek's thirtieth anniversary, and one of the articles in there quotes one of the people who worked on the show (I can't remember who) as saying something like, "Even when we know that the science is bogus, we try to at least keep it *consistently* bogus." And yeah, while I love both franchises (and am thus well aware of both of their flaws), I feel that Trek does a better job on that front."

Spock's Brain (or more specifically, the episode where he loses said brain) says hello to you all."
That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi."

Star Wars is often thought to be Sci-fi, but it is definitely a space fantasy. It follows the Hero’s Journey trope and has wizards with magical powers. That’s how it’s always been. It takes place a long time ago, while ST is in the future. A major requirement for something to be sci-fi is for it to be in the future. Star Wars tech wasn’t supposed to be grounded in reality, but people have since started trying to make it so that it is lol.

@AustinPowers said:
"That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi."

You don’t know how physics works in Star Wars Galaxy.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi."

You don’t know how physics works in Star Wars Galaxy."
Well, my initial reply was a tongue-in-cheek answer to your quite rational sounding comment about the tech in Star Wars, to which I replied that it doesn't have to be viable, it only has to be able to make money (for the studio and everyone involved).
Since then we have gone a bit off-tangent.

@The1RealmShifter
Science fiction does not need to be set in the future.
Steampunk, for instance.

@MCLegoboy said:
"Double Force Awakens. Will it be mostly Star Wars this week in celebration of Mando & Grogu?"

I'm watching TFA on Saturday as part of my marathon, HuwBot knows this!

66 sets, huh?

The S-foils on this are upside-down, the lower one should be in front and the top ones in the rear. https://i.imgur.com/oBE0dG6.jpeg

@560heliport said:
" @The1RealmShifter
Science fiction does not need to be set in the future.
Steampunk, for instance. "

Back to the Future may be a comedy, but it's a sci-fi comedy, and it starts out in the then-present. Many time travel stories start out in the present, and although many of those don't accomplish the time travel by sci-fi means, BttF does.

"Today's random set is 30278 Poe's X-wing Fighter, released during 2016. It's one of 66 Star Wars sets produced that year."

I wonder how many completionist superfans decided to order 66??

@AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi."

You don’t know how physics works in Star Wars Galaxy."
Well, my initial reply was a tongue-in-cheek answer to your quite rational sounding comment about the tech in Star Wars, to which I replied that it doesn't have to be viable, it only has to be able to make money (for the studio and everyone involved).
Since then we have gone a bit off-tangent. "

Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman had a project called Starshield, where the laws of physics were immutable on a local level, but mutable on a large scale. Basically, the universe would be divided up into pockets where Physics A works in this pocket, Physica B in the neighboring pocket to one side, and Physics C in the pocket on the other side. Within the scope of this project, any speculative fiction that’s not set in our local area could have completely different physics, and you wouldn’t know what you were going to get until you arrived. Star Trek is based around Earth, which means they’d be subject to the physics we learn in school. Star Wars is in a galaxy far, far away, which means you might have to cross several of these pockets to reach a place where lightsabers and midichlorians are real, and constant thrust equals constant motion. From that point of view, SW physics beats ST physics because much of ST physics has already been disproved, but you couldnt say for sure if SW physics is possible unless you actually traveled there. Hence why I said you don’t know how physics works in the Star Wars galaxy.

@Cyno01 said:
"The S-foils on this are upside-down, the lower one should be in front and the top ones in the rear. https://i.imgur.com/oBE0dG6.jpeg"

They're not upside-down, they're stacked, like a T-65.
But you're right, when retracted the top wings should be in front of the bottom wings.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"That's why I said PARTIALLY grounded in reality.
Star Wars otoh is almost complete baloney tech-wise and more fantasy than Sci-fi."

You don’t know how physics works in Star Wars Galaxy."
Well, my initial reply was a tongue-in-cheek answer to your quite rational sounding comment about the tech in Star Wars, to which I replied that it doesn't have to be viable, it only has to be able to make money (for the studio and everyone involved).
Since then we have gone a bit off-tangent. "

Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman had a project called Starshield, where the laws of physics were immutable on a local level, but mutable on a large scale. Basically, the universe would be divided up into pockets where Physics A works in this pocket, Physica B in the neighboring pocket to one side, and Physics C in the pocket on the other side. Within the scope of this project, any speculative fiction that’s not set in our local area could have completely different physics, and you wouldn’t know what you were going to get until you arrived. Star Trek is based around Earth, which means they’d be subject to the physics we learn in school. Star Wars is in a galaxy far, far away, which means you might have to cross several of these pockets to reach a place where lightsabers and midichlorians are real, and constant thrust equals constant motion. From that point of view, SW physics beats ST physics because much of ST physics has already been disproved, but you couldnt say for sure if SW physics is possible unless you actually traveled there. Hence why I said you don’t know how physics works in the Star Wars galaxy."
You do realize that we are talking about works of fiction, right?
Stuff that is totally made up purely for entertainment purposes and in effect just to make money for whatever company is behind the relevant property? None of it is real, none of the physics exist - in the reality of our universe or any other. Or so you actually take any of the stuff you see in Sci-fi or Fantasy movies seriously?

@AustinPowers said:
"You do realize that we are talking about works of fiction, right?
Stuff that is totally made up purely for entertainment purposes and in effect just to make money for whatever company is behind the relevant property? None of it is real, none of the physics exist - in the reality of our universe or any other. Or so you actually take any of the stuff you see in Sci-fi or Fantasy movies seriously? "

I understand the difference between saying, "We obey real physics," and getting things wrong (sometimes intentionally so), and saying, "Physics works differently in this story." Starshield is just a convenient way of explaining it. No amount of consistency fixes intentionally screwing up physics in a story that takes place where we actually live. But take the story outside of our real-world setting, and you can redefine physics to be whatever fits the needs of the plot. That doesn't mean the IP is inconsistent, necessarily.

For 35 years, one person had final approval on everything written to take place in the Star Wars universe. For those same 35 years, any random fan could submit a script on speculation for Star Trek, meaning there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different takes on how physics work. Many of them tried to make their episodes sound more "scientifical" by cramming in the latest fringe science before it could be tested. Consistently wrong is still wrong, and Trek has the problem that it takes place in _our_ future, while SW is far enough removed that you can't hold up the same measuring stick.

They gave me this instead of Blue Milk Luke when I preordered Skywalker Saga :\