What is the Master Builder Series?
Posted by CapnRex101,
The recent announcement of 75222 Betrayal at Cloud City contained an interesting reference to the 'Master Builder Series'. This new branding has not been applied to previous LEGO Star Wars direct-to-consumer products, with the 'Ultimate Collector Series' designation appearing on the packaging instead.
I am therefore wondering under what circumstances the Master Builder Series brand might be used in the future and how the decision to divide, or even replace, the Ultimate Collector Series came about. That is the subject of today's article.
The true definition of an Ultimate Collector Series set has caused some controversy in recent years, brought on in particular by the release of 75098 Assault on Hoth. That set is definitely focused upon play rather than display and consists of several disparate sections so does not feel entirely cohesive. Nevertheless, it was officially described as an Ultimate Collector Series set, to the frustration of many LEGO fans.
Personally, I am not protective of the Ultimate Collector Series brand so this did not bother me too much. However, it does seem strange to categorise a set like 75098 Assault on Hoth beside 10179 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon as the two models are very different and are obviously aimed at completely different audiences.
In fact, browsing through the Ultimate Collector Series in the Brickset database reveals that LEGO has been somewhat careless with the UCS branding throughout its history. The series began in 2000 and its name has since been changed on several occasions, shifting between Ultimate Collector Series and Ultimate Collector's Series. Moreover, packaging designs and the associated UCS branding have been redesigned quite frequently, most recently for 75192 Millennium Falcon and its successors.
The content of each set also varies, ranging in size from the 187-piece 10026 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter to 75192 Millennium Falcon which consists of 7541 pieces! Categorising those sets together seems illogical, although they do share a number of similarities as both sets are minifigure-scale and they each come with an information plaque.
However, the clearest and most controversial division within the Ultimate Collector Series is between sets for display and those which are intended for play. The earliest UCS sets were primarily designed for display and were aimed at older collectors so that appears to have been LEGO's original intention. Even so, the range has since grown to include play sets, such as the aforementioned 75098 Assault on Hoth and 75222 Betrayal at Cloud City.
The Master Builder Series is presumably intended to solve this issue. I expect that branding will be applied to large direct-to-consumer sets which are aimed at both children and adults. Meanwhile, the Ultimate Collector Series might be reserved for sets focusing upon an older audience, such as 75144 Snowspeeder or 75181 Y-wing Starfighter. It is possible that the Master Builder Series will replace the UCS range altogether, although that seems very unlikely given the recognition for the original brand.
Whether this solution will satisfy everyone remains to be seen. Retroactively categorising most Ultimate Collector Series sets might be fairly simple but there are some that appear more nuanced. 75059 Sandcrawler, for example, includes numerous minifigures and a few functions but the set looks fantastic on display and seemed to receive more attention from adults than it did from children. Ultimately, the success of both the Ultimate Collector Series and the Master Builder Series will be defined by their consistent application in the future.
How do you think the 'Master Builder Series' branding will be used in the future? Let us know in the comments.
97 likes
46 comments on this article
We will for sure see many different scenes in this range. Hopefully maybe Snoke's throne room, with much more details, or maybe Obi vs Anakin. I'd be happy if the boxes also could get a new layout
When a set is great, it's great. Assault On Hoth however, is indefencible, whatever the branding.
I think it is a good idea to add the 'Master Builder Series' to differentiate the more play-focused sets from the 'Ultimate Collector Series' display sets. The 75222 Betrayal at Cloud City is in my opinion being misjudged. It seems like most people judge it as if it were an UCS set.
I personally hope to see more of these MBS sets (and also UCS of course) and I'm looking forward to add 75222 Betrayal at Cloud City to my collection.
UCS used to mean an expensive set aimed at serious builders, mostly AFOLs. Now, expensive sets are becoming the norm, but not all are aimed at AFOLs, so they needed a new label to make them stand out and justify the cost.
LEGO clearly doesn't think it can now sell display (UCS) sets of Star Wars locations, ala the recent Hogwarts Castle 71043, or Death Star 2 - 10143 of the past and going with playsets.
I am disappointed with this decision, as I would love a display version of the Death Star or Cloud City.
That being said, even as a playset, I think they could do a much better job that this latest set.
Whilst it is not as big or as expensive as the Death Star 75159/10188, I think they needed to at least aim for the shape of the setting, building vertically rather than horizontally. To for example at least have the Luke Vader Duel at the top.
The other decision to be made is like some of the other Lego themes, do you have your core set and perhaps a couple of smaller sets that are released at a similar time to expand on the play, i.e. release the midscale Slave 1 separately and use those valuable pieces to improve your core set.
Collector Series to me is the ship line, the Cloud City set is a huge, overpriced play set.
I know a lot more themes that could do with a ‘master builders series’ or ‘ultimate collectors series’ which of late seems to be very much wasted on this particular theme.
I have a feeling that sets like BB-8 and Porg are basically what the MBS line is going to be, sets that are almost UCS, and/or are larger scale sets, but just not quite.
Firstly I like the Cloud City set and will be getting it. I'm also not overly precious about what constitutes a UCS set or a play set. Some people consider the Republic Gunship or the AT-OT set to be UCS (Not helped by that Lego UCS poster a while back), and that's fine. I think this extra subcategory will definitely help with the backlash that Assault on Hoth received, and to some degree the Death Star for being branded UCS. Both of these and including the Ewok Village would've been perfectly categorised under the 'Master Builder' naming convention.
I still think the Sandcrawler should be an official UCS and should've had a plaque. I also think we will see a revised and remastered ISD next year for the Star Wars theme 20 year anniversary. But I also look forward to future 'Master Builder' sets.
Question is, what will the 'UCS' Porg be classed as....?
I hope LEGO puts out a clear statement about this... I spent many hours looking through old web archives and found out that 6 sets that you (brickset.com) don't list as an UCS set actually are UCS sets, for example the old Cloud City set or the motorized AT-AT. All of them were listed in the "Ultimate Collector Series" category in old versions of the LEGO Online Shop.
So: Yeah. LEGO needs to put an end to this confusion.
If lego did had done a UCS Cloud City, they should do it Nanofig scale like Hogwarts. Now that would be cool!
In my collection I also consider 10144, 0178 and 10195 as UCS; it's really subjective considering even Lego hasn't been consistent with its UCS branding.
Master Builder Series = The Lego Movie reference. Or something.
Is there a way you can ask Lego about this? Either through the community service people or the company directly? It is an interesting question that I am sure a lot of people are curious about and it would be nice to hear an official definition.
"Personally, I am not protective of the Ultimate Collector Series brand so this did not bother me too much"
I dont agree that the issue was being "protective of the brand", so much as that there are only two UCS sets released a year, they're highly anticipated in the community, and Assault on hoth meant we essentially only got one UCS set that year instead of two. Its the "UCS release slots" that people are protective of.
Hopefully we can get one Star Wars UCS and MBS set a year to satisfy both camps. Fingers crossed next year we get something like Jedi Temple, or Jabba's Palace.
Or perhaps “Master builder” is just a new umbrella for all D2C sets, including UCS and Creator Expert.
If MB translates to playsets and UCS to display sets that would seem a reasonsble approach to keep a wider audience happy. One of each a year would be plenty, I don’t get the need for 2 UCS a year. A limited budget combined with diminishing storage space has made me significantly more selective in my Lego purchases, I now only buy what I love and don’t feel worse off for it. The UCS MF was my catalyst.
^ a good point made.
Wasn't Master Builder a subscription a few years back? You would get a new set every month or something?
UCS sets should not contain any minifigures in my opinion. Just a vehicle and a information plaque. MBS sets should have a minimum of 15-20 minifigures and should focus on an area rather than vehicles. If you're going to delineate, do it all the way.
I personally do not like how some of the UCS sets contain one super detailed minifigure that you cannot get anywhere else. Almost as bad as a SDCC or country based exclusive mini.
@lippidp You're thinking of BrickMaster. I used to have it as a kid and loved it. We only subscribed to get discounts for LEGOLand so, unfortunately, only had it for a year.
@lippidp @AstroDroid there was also Master Builder's Academy, starting with 20200, although apparently it was US only.
Think most of us adults would be pretty happy if LEGO just did UCS Ships / Vehicles twice a year instead.
Remake the Imperial Star Destroyer, Darth Vader's Tie, AT-AT, Republic Gunship............
Sigh.
MBS or UCS: While they do need better brand consistency, I don't really care about what they call it!
Based on what I've been reading in the comments, here and across the Web...most LEGO Star Wars fans wanted a vertical display / play Cloud City with a good range of unique mini-figures...period...full stop!
Why isn't LEGO listening to us? I was disappointed with the remake of The Death Star because they didn't take that wonderful playlet and evolve it, into a more display friendly model. Easy enough!
Then...they gave us Assault on Hoth and the negative feedback was overwhelming. Yet, with Betrayal at Cloud City, I feel they not only turned a deaf ear... they told AFOLs to take a hike by taking shelter under this MBS moniker (as if that is an excuse).
Is Betrayal at Cloud City a bad set? No way! Despite being, ugly with an odd layout, it appears to be a wonderfully detailed playset with some unique / new mini-figures that we should have had with last year's UCS Falcon.
While on the subject of minis:
> IG88 should have been omitted in favour of a 2nd Ugnaught
> Only 1 of the 2 Cloud City Guards should have had white skin colouring
> Hoth Leia should have be without her vest (as seen from the Carbon Chamber Scene - onward)
> C3-PO should have either had removable limbs or been integrated for Chewbacca to carry in some way
> Bob Fett should have had a different cape (at the very least) to keep the UCS Slave 1 version unique
> Han in Carbonite needs updating
I really just don't get it... LEGO is so good about their IDEAS platform... yet they just don't listen to us... as everything I've said above... has also been said by countless other LEGO Star Wars fans.
The Master Builder Series (MBS) moniker is a great idea to separate these type of mega playlets from highly detailed Ultimate Collector Series (UCS) display models like the Falcon but branding doesn't resolve fan sentiment.
While I buy this set... Ah.... I likely will. Yes... I will, but reluctantly. Why? Because I made a mistake, I passed on Assault on Hoth and by the time I ended up buying the Tauntaun, Wampa, Luke, Droids, few Officers, etc... OMG... was I stupid (think I was just angry about the set), I should have just bought the set and used the bricks for a MOC. So... I won't make that mistake again. While no one is forcing me to buy it... it lessens my excitement for future LEGO Star Wars products.
Holding out hope for a Master Builder Series arena on Geonosis, or clone factory on Kamino. Attack of the Clones may have been a weaker movie, but boy did it have some amazing set pieces. Speaking as an AFOL, more large-scale playsets please!
It's kind of weird that they released the Ewok Village set, which is essentially a playset, and it didn't have the UCS label and most people loved it. A couple of years later, they released the Assault on Hoth with the UCS label and everyone complained about it. That set looked ok to me but then again, I already had some Hoth sets, which I liked a lot better IMHO. Now everyone is complaining about the Betrayal at Cloud City set, which doesn't have the label, and partly because it is "unorganized", but then again, we haven't really seen all of Cloud City, have we? So in that regard, Lego did everything right with the new Cloud City.
Looking forward to the future of this new line! Perhaps it could be expanded into other themes.
Yeah, maybe now there trying to rebrand the different larger building kits.
UCS for large sets, more complex building techniques and display value while the Master Builder Series is also for size but play value/features with a nice assortment of minifigures.
I'd like if they just keep the UCS kits with plaques (and please Lego print the plaques!) and UCS and Master building kits should NOT only be Star Wars. Give these distinctions across Lego's line.
I hope you are on to something with play vs display. But ultimately, some fall into both like Sandcrawler and Ewok Forest. I guess we will have to wait and find out.
I have decided (after years of collecting all D2C sets since 1999, that it was time I only buy the ones I really want since I was running out of storage room. I have since sold a handful of them and only buy 10 D2C sets a year or so (which is still most of them) but don't feel bad not getting some of them. I will be skipping Cloud City unless for some reason my kids really fall for it, but I am thinking they won't be very interested.
From what I have been able to gather is that some of the more longtime or hard-core UCS fans want highly detailed and beautiful display models. So I think making a Master Builder Series is a good solution to this for sets like Betrayal at Cloud City and Assault on Hoth. I think the long-time UCS fans will be overall happy with this as long as it does not cut into the number of "true UCS" sets released each year.
Personally I don't care. I actually love my Assault on Hoth and I am 41 years old. I also really enjoyed that we got 2 minifigures with the recent UCS Snowspeeder and that UCS Slave 1 was also part playset.
I always thought that any set that included a specification plaque could be considered a "UCS" set including R2D2, Tumbler, Helicarrier, BB8, and Hulkbuster even if they arent "officially" considered as such. After all, Lego has made several versions of some of these sets and if I said UCS Hulkbuster people would immediately know which set I was talking about.
But at the same time the UCS Death Star does not come with a plaque and I personally would even consider the new Hogwarts Castle to be a UCS set without a plaque.
Is the UCS branding only limited to the Star Wars theme? I suppose it doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things other than cause some confusion among collectors.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - some English guy from a while ago.
I really can't understand why so many people get so worked up over whether or not a set is branded by LEGO as UCS. Is it that those people want to be complete-ests and have to own all UCS; but are not happy with "poor" UCS sets? Or is it that those people need a strict definition to make sense out of the brand?
Someone please chime in and help me understand. While Star Wars fans are a whiney bunch, it seems there's an extra amount of complaining around "should be UCS/shouldn't be UCS" sets.
Personally, I see a set that would look great in my collection and be fun to build, and I get it. I really could not care less what the box says.
Ultimate Collectore Series: all sets with a plaque
Master Builder Series: playsets like: Death Star, Ewok Village, Assault on Hoth, Sandcrawler and the new Cloud City set
I always saw UCS as larger than Minifig scale. The Falcon was an exception simply because if you built it at the same scale the X-Wing, TIE fighters, etc were built, it'd be even more ridiculously huge.
So yeah, for me UCS is:
- 1.25 - 1.5x minifig scale (this automatically excludes busts/statues, etc)
- Star Wars (the name UCS doesn't imply it but it's kind of a de facto standard)
- Has a data plaque
- Focused on realism, though not necessarily exclusive of play value
That means 10026 Naboo fighter is as much a UCS as the new Falcon--which is as it should be (ignoring the exception that proves the rule of the Falcon being 1:1 minifig scale).
Wait, this isn't an argument in favour of Insult on Hoth, is it?
This is a really interesting argument to me, and although I don’t care at all, Ill buy a set if I like it regardless of a label, I just think some of the points being made are interesting. Many people claim that Assault on Hoth, while may have its downsides wasn’t UCS because it was designed for play and not display due to its disjointed style but I don’t see it like that at all. It had the opening doors and firing missiles, but the Sandcrawler had way more functions with opening sides, fold out crane, removable panels. Furthermore, for me, each section of that set was well designed and made, all the set was missing was a baseplate to tie all the sections together and you had a really displayable scene that had all the sections needed to display some of the best scenes from the opening scene of Episode V. It might just be me who has more of a connection to displaying a specific scene from the movie than a vehicle I just find the displayabilty of Assault on Hoth way more appealing than say the new Y-Wing. On the other hand, I completely see the argument that a UCS set should be perfect, shouldn’t require adding bits (a baseplate) to create a complete display piece.
Wasn't Master Builder Academy it's own theme at one point?
Am I really the only person that really liked Assault On Hoth? I thought it came with the perfect amount of Hoth Rebel Troopers. And the Wampa was a fantastic bonus. It could have used more Snowtroopers and a speederbike or two. But overall I thought the build was great, the figures were great, the molded creatures were great, and the value was great
I'd be happy for both Star Wars UCS and MBS sets, where UCS means sets for display and MBS is reserved for large scale play sets. Only thing I do not understand is why these labels are only applied to the Star Wars theme. I think many other sets like the recent Hogwarts Castle could benefit from the UCS label.
I don’t think we should go back and re-label older sets, because they were already branded as UCS. Although 75098 would fit into this new category, that set is still technically UCS since the Master Builder Series didn’t exist yet. All future similar sets will be placed in the category but older ones should t be reclassified, especially if they have a UCS logo on the box.
I think peoples' problem with Hoth was not that it was necessarily a bad set but that it didn't feel like a UCS set. I think also there's some sentiment that had that set not been called UCS, we would have gotten another "proper" UCS set. Personally, I'm still waiting for an A-Wing.
Master Builder Series is almost certainly a replacement for Ultimate Collector Series; and a good one at that.
'MBS' is a much better description of what the product actually is, because it communicates the build is challenging.
'UCS' is a relic brand, and communicates nothing other than exclusivity. On top of this, fans use the acronym to describe pretty much any idea that comes out of their brain which happens to be a 'serious' set, or contains a placard...
What's more, LEGO can overcome the problem of designing these challenging sets that actually do benefit from play features. MBS is therefore relevant to these sets and to display models, which kills two birds with one stone.
Controversial, no doubt, with the minority that demand consistency and feel entitled. But a genuinely good move by the company!
I'll sum up what the Master Builder Series is real quick: "Quit whining about what is and isn't UCS".
Nothing else will change. This doesn't magically free up a release slot and lead to two big display models of ships per year, I hope nobody is actually getting their hopes up for that. Large D2C Star Wars playsets have been a thing for years now, they're not going away, time to get used to it. They just changed the name so UCS purists can finally shut up.
Ok lets put this debate over what is and what isn't UCS to rest once and for all. EVERY single Lego Star Wars set is a UCS set since the ultimate collector will collect EVERY single Lego Star Wars set.
I really don't see what all the confusion was about. ;)
Well I'm not a fan of these "cross section" playsets, and if they keep the UCS line hopefully this means playset fans who insist that these look good on display can have their own line, and those of us who are more interested in more accurate display models too.
And TLG would have 2 distinct lines of highly (over?)priced sets. Would be a win-win-win, but I am really baffled by TLG-s business decisions sometimes so we'll see what they make of this.
From the branding perspective, this is a mess. If TLG cannot consolidate their prestige lines with clarity then they fail to distinguish any meaning. So whether they do UCS, Master Builder Series, Master Collector Series, Ultimate Builder Series, Ultimate Play Series or Master Display Series, it is just a big set with a big price tag.