75192 Millennium Falcon vs. 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer vs. 75313 AT-AT

I would be very interested to see how other AFOLs felt about the building experience(s). I am lucky enough to have the first two and as you say once built they are very impressive. I personally found that the sheer size of them (and weight) meant that as I built (over many days) moving it about to build or store xx% built for the next day was ackward. Towards the end there was almost nowhere to pick up without risking damaging an underside (both models attach bits at angles). Foolishly the only place I could store the Destroyer was 6ft up on top of a shelf so picking it up from above by the handle proved rather difficult. I suppose at this scale its difficult to make it easy to handle (with multiple pickup points) and accurate.

Hard to say what is favourite when I have yet to see IRL the ATAT model. The MilF will always be iconic, and although I have yet to build my ISD, looks boring to build as well as boring compared to the MilF, although its majestic size helps.

Bring on the At-At, if I can get it

@MusiMus said:
"I voted for the Millennium Falcon, but personally I prefer 10179 to 75192.
Also, I prefer 10030 to 75252."

Do you also prefer 10178 to 75313?

Looking at just the volume of the AT-AT itself, it doesn't feel like it's anywhere near as substantial as the Falcon or even the ISD. I have yet to see one in person so maybe that will chs my mind, but based solely on this picture I'd estimate it at around $500 relative to the Falcon.

Between the AT-AT and the falcon, which is most appropriate to scale assuming mini figs represent average human height?

@SlimBrick1:
Anyone logged into a Brickset account sees any posts made using that account highlighted in red. Yellow comments are site staff, which lends a bit of authority to them when they tell people to behave. The red comments are somewhat helpful in finding where you left off reading a long comment thread, assuming you posted at that point*. What would also be useful is color-coding for anyone responding to you (maybe blue to complete the Mondrian colors?).

*I know that clicking on the “comments” link to get into the page is supposed to take you right to the last comment that was loaded when you most recently visited that page, but it doesn’t always work out that way. Sometimes you get sent right to the first comment, and I have no idea why. Sometimes you get sent to the right comment, but it takes so long for images to load on a slow connection that the page spends the next minute or two shifting under your screen, and you can’t even read _any_ comments until it stops.

@MusiMus said:
"I voted for the Millennium Falcon, but personally I prefer 10179 to 75192.
Also, I prefer 10030 to 75252."

Spot on (IMHO) on both.

I thought I was the only one that felt that way!

I own the Falcon, but not the ISD. I like when minifigures can interact with a set (but I don't care about scale all that much). Had it had an interior, I might have gotten it.

I'm looking forward to getting the AT-AT, but I'm afraid the site will crash tonight and that I won't be able to get a copy of the set. We'll see, I guess.

[Edit: I did not answer the question since I haven't seen or built the AT-AT.]

@CapnRex101 said:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would be interested to hear why certain people prefer 10179 to 75192 , or 10030 to 75252 ."

I've never had the luxury of building or owning any of them so purely based on photos and video reviews I like 75192 . It is so iconic and has some color variations, benefits from newer building techniques and parts over the older version and is visually more appealing :)

I would be willing to shell out up to $400 CAD for a new Death Star or Death star II....(I know that doesn't fit in this price category)

I only own - and have only ever wanted - the MF, so it was an easy vote.

The first picture shows just how boring and uniformly grey the ISD is, despite the rending on the box that tries to make it look more interesting. And it appears that the AT-AT also suffers from this problem, though I am quite looking forward to seeing it built in a store.

Also, of the three vehicles, it is only the MF that has ever felt truly iconic to me in the SW universe. Even though I was there in 1977 to watch it from the beginning I was never taken by a massive grey doorstop and what appears to be the most impractical tank/troop carrier ever. Obviously both made for iconic scenes at the start of Star Wars and Empire but beyond that are, to me, then largely forgettable.

I already had 10030 and 10179 and, really, couldn't justify the increased costs for the newer incarnations of both...not to say I would say "No" if they were readily attainable (financial and in-stock).
But it is the Falcon that truly seems iconic of the franchise and always draws an "eye-opener" for new guests to my place...the flying wedge...not so much.

Like a lot of grey. I have 2, will probably use my points to get a discount on the AT AT which will make it seem more affordable.

I voted for the Falcon but will likely never get it since it’s retiring soon. I only recently emerged from my dark age and, for me at least, I just need more time to “prepare” for such a purchase. I will likely pick up the AT-AT after I save enough VIP points - Empire has always been my favorite movie, so I won’t be too disappointed if I end up owning that one instead of the Falcon.
Like many of you, I have no interest in the Star Destroyer. Looks impressive enough, but I’m personally not interested in it primarily because it doesn’t interact with minifigs. Plus the issue of space...

@CapnRex101 - my guess is nostalgic value, but I’d be interested in what people say about that, too. ... or people just looked up the wrong set number! ;)

@Norikins said:
" @MusiMus said:
"I voted for the Millennium Falcon, but personally I prefer 10179 to 75192.
Also, I prefer 10030 to 75252."

Do you also prefer 10178 to 75313?"

It's difficult for me to compare the two sets in the same categories. The 75313 is much bigger and more impressive and in my opinion even overscaled for the minifigures. If I had to compare 10178 I would compare it to other AT-ATs of similar size, and in this scale, in my opinion, 4483 is the best.

I voted for the star destroyer. I love them all though.

For the detailing and overall value, it would be the Falcon easily, but for that footprint. AT-AT is my next choice due to the smaller footprint, but the value doesn't look as good for CAD $950.

@CapnRex101 said:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would be interested to hear why certain people prefer 10179 to 75192, or 10030 to 75252."

For some reason I like 10179 and 10030 more as sets. There may be a bit of nostalgia to it, but nonetheless, I find the old versions of these shuttles more like their movie counterparts (that's just my opinion). These sets were an unprecedented achievement for the time in which they were created. In 10030, the design with magnets has always been extremely impressive for me. Paradoxically, the older version seems to have much more interesting builder techniques and I think that it looks nicer as a set. Similarly with 10179. I know the new version has much more pieces. I also know that it has an interior (which is very difficult to access). It also has a lot of stickers (I don't like the idea of ??stickers imitating corridors). The cockpit in it is basically two large bricks. I also don't really like the idea that 75192 is mostly based on the Disney trilogy. The designer tried to find a compromise between it and the original trilogy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the enemy of the new UCS sets. I have both versions of MFs and I like both, but for the reasons I mentioned, I prefer the old versions.

If display space was not a issue, the MF would be my choice. Even for me to keep it MIB would mean trying to find a home for it's huge box.

ISD for me (minority here), but not surprised since most people like the MF and AT-AT. For UCS sets the larger the original ship the better imo since they can capture the details of it. On the other hand, smaller ships don't need to be that large to capture the details. It's funny since the ISD looks the largest, yet it's has the fewest amount of pieces, and it's not even close (close to 3000 pieces less than the MF). But large capital ships would always be my favorite for a UCS treatment. I just don't like having a giant small ship. Best is, it is $100 cheaper than the other 2, although it has the fewest pieces. I guess it uses larger pieces. I would be more interested in their weight comparison rather than pieces since it gives a better idea of how much plastic are involved in here (cost of material). Pieces is not the best way to do so. And they should have included the SSD too since it is the longest among them. Wish they make more capital ships rather than smaller ships for UCS treatment. There are so many choices out there that has never been done before, yet they keep remaking MF and some other vehicles again and again.

What is the weight in box of the new AT-AT when compared to the MF or ISD? If I remember rightly the ISD was only slightly less weight then the MF. Even accounting for the amount of solid Technic needed for the AT-AT, the overall size does not look like it weights anywhere near the other two, which is why I would have the issue with forking over $1300AUD for it.

Anyone with the answer to the weight question? Would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!

Obviously haven’t built/seen the AT-AT, but I slightly prefer the Star Destroyer to the MF. It just looks a bit more imposing and ripped from the movie to me which is more a compliment to it than a negative for the MF. From reviews I’ve watched, I expect the AT-AT to be right there with the star destroyer, especially once I add a snow speeder next to it.

The only UCS sets I get are the ones close to minifigure scale. I love my falcon, slave I, and sandcrawler. I'll probably snatch the ATAT once it drops 100 bucks or so

I have the first two and against the grain, my favourite is definitely the ISD. I am biased though, it's also my favourite vehicle in SW.
Then the AT-AT - that model is amazing.
I do like the MF, but I've never really been a fan of the ship in SW. The Lego set is actually better than the in verse ship and is a beautiful set, but a definite 3rd for me.

@Squidy74H said:
"What is the weight in box of the new AT-AT when compared to the MF or ISD? If I remember rightly the ISD was only slightly less weight then the MF. Even accounting for the amount of solid Technic needed for the AT-AT, the overall size does not look like it weights anywhere near the other two, which is why I would have the issue with forking over $1300AUD for it.

Anyone with the answer to the weight question? Would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!"

See @stlux post above- it's the 13th post.

From an esthetic point of view the ISD is by far the most beautiful to my eyes.

@bcontant said:
" @TomKazutara said:
"4784 pieces
£649.99, $699.99, €699.99

It still makes absolutely no sense."

It does to people who are able to understand that the volume of plastic and the amount of pieces is not necessarily correlated."

It doesn’t if you actually bother to calculate the weight to price ratio , which takes that into account. Nice try at smugness though.

The parts in the ISD are on average quite a bit larger than those in the MF
75192 Millennium Falcon; 13.2kg
75252 Imperial Star Destroyer: 12.5kg
75313 AT-AT: 10.6kg

As posted

So ABS moulding material costs around 3€ per kg hence you can soon see the kind of mark up …….

1. AT-AT
2. Millenium Falcon
3. Imperial Star Destroyer

It's just a shame I can't really afford any of them!

@MusiMus:
By what measure are you deciding the AT-AT is larger than minifig scale? Those feet are monstrous in the shot where Luke’s snowspeeder gets stomped on.

@560heliport said:
" @Squidy74H said:
"What is the weight in box of the new AT-AT when compared to the MF or ISD? If I remember rightly the ISD was only slightly less weight then the MF. Even accounting for the amount of solid Technic needed for the AT-AT, the overall size does not look like it weights anywhere near the other two, which is why I would have the issue with forking over $1300AUD for it.

Anyone with the answer to the weight question? Would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!"

See @stlux post above- it's the 13th post."

Thanks for the heads up, did scan through the comments but missed that some how, was about 4am so going to plead sleep deprivation lol!! Cheers!

AT-AT was always my number one choice for the UCS treatment because it combines size, detail and minifig-compatibility.

ISD loses points because it will forever be entirely separate from minifigures. Like the helmet busts it's its own collection and incompatible.
Falcon loses points because it is missing most of the interior. The exterior has basically no play functions on its own.

And now I probably turn to personal preference instead of staying entirely factual but,
even with an entirely accurate and complete interior the UCS Falcon would not beat the AT-AT as its playability does not increase with size. People say the AT-AT from 2020 is good enough in playability and its basic points, which is correct, but since the concept of the vehicle is entirely built on size from the get-go, an even bigger AT-AT, even with the slow gear system joints, has better playability from my point of view.
On the other hand the Falcon is merely a dollhouse in the shape of a ship and decent MOCers can hit all the necessary points from the cross-sections book with a model that is the size of the TROS Falcon set. A structure as large as the actual minifig scale Falcon is unnecessarily large and I think minifig scale should actually be closer to 1:42 than 1:35 concerning most vehicles as they correspond more with length and width than figure height. On the other hand tall structures like Walkers need a focus on height and thus increased scale in that area.

Similarly the UCS Slave One is the only other perfect UCS set to me even though the set is only half its actual size and has zero playable interior, because we never saw and thus don't really need more than that. The basic functions are enough, its details are exceptional, don't get better with more size, and it was offered at a fair price point (especially compared to UCS offerings since the Falcons re-release...).
The One-Man fighters have enough detail when minifig scaled as they are in System Sets. Really, UCS Scale always was in a weird spot where people just want a model kit that looks worse, is more expensive and bigger than a real model kit. There are no good model kits since Revell has always been terrible and Bandai merely sits on the license, but still, the feeling of having built something by yourself throughout all steps does not resonate with me more than its final aesthetic values. Painted one piece statues still beat the Lego models then, especially at price.

ISD is the only one I have and probably the only one of these three Ill ever buy. I dont really believe in PPP so the low ish piece count doesnt affect me and its just the coolest set of the three to display.

Wow...that's a lot of grey...

Sorta' a 'tie'(:)) between the AT-AT (which if I had one, I'd call it 'Ranger: The Texas Walker'), and the 'Aluminum Falcon' (ah, 'Robot Chicken'; the gift that keeps on giving...). And while I 'like' the Star Destroyer, kinda' want a 'Super'/Executioner Class...Still get chills thinking about the first time seeing it...

They're all too expensive for me; I would always choose to buy multiple smaller sets and have a more fun play experience with a lot more flexibility. Possibly a more fun building experience too (though I've never built a USC set).

For poll purposes, I chose the AT-AT because I have the most chance of being played with as a centerpiece, or to be displayed at the back or a diorama. But, given the existence of a perfectly good alternative at a smaller size, I would never buy it.

I wonder how much buyer-regret happens with these massive models. Probably not as much with the Falcon because it's so iconic, but surely most of these sets are in storage or displayed in less-than-ideal situations.

Still not enough grey bricks.

7 people out of 10 prefer the MF, including me. No contest. I bought the MF 75192 on day one but will pass on the other two which are not worth their price tags (and which I own in smaller versions).

The MF is the only one I'd really pay that much for, even if I wouldn't know where to display it properly. The Star Destroyer just looks a bit dull to me, and the 100 euro AT-AT would be fine. I'd rather buy a few more nice sets.

@ComfySofa said:
"...
I wonder how much buyer-regret happens with these massive models. Probably not as much with the Falcon because it's so iconic, but surely most of these sets are in storage or displayed in less-than-ideal situations."
I think I hardly ever regretted buying a set, except maybe a few used ones. It is easy to sell them off again when one should wish to do so.

@CapnRex101 said:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would be interested to hear why certain people prefer 10179 to 75192, or 10030 to 75252."

Having built both UCS Falcons I can honestly say the 75192 is a definite improvement on 10179.
It is more detailed, feels more sturdy, has options for various movie versions, and more minifigures.
I didn't think buying the newer version was worthwhile. But Lego proved me wrong.

@SlimBrick1 said:
"I personally have none of these (I only own the UCS X-Wing) But I think I like the AT-AT the best, I think it has more interior than the other models, I like that it is (almost) minifigure scale. I don't care for the Star Destroyer mainly because it has no interior, and it is also FAR from fig scale, Which I understand considering it is a huge starship in the saga. The Millennium Falcon is a formidable set, I used to own the 2nd largest LEGO set ever made, with the Millennium Falcon being first (2nd was the Hogwarts Castle, would recommend the castle great set) But then they came out with the dumb 31203 World Map, and the 10276 Colosseum. Then also 10294 Titanic. I think the Falcon deserved to be in first place, it is a great set for AFOLs and the display is very impressive. The one thing I didn't like was it being an exterior only model. I would have liked to see some interior detail, like the holochess, or the main space where Luke practices his skills with a Lightsaber. Over All, I think the Falcon and Walker are great, but couldn't care less for the Destroyer.

Edit: Quick question, does my comment show up in red to you guys? or is that just showing it is me?"

Do you own the older UCS falcon? Because the newer one does have a couple of interior sections including the chess

@Volfogg said:
" @SlimBrick1 said:
"I personally have none of these (I only own the UCS X-Wing) But I think I like the AT-AT the best, I think it has more interior than the other models, I like that it is (almost) minifigure scale. I don't care for the Star Destroyer mainly because it has no interior, and it is also FAR from fig scale, Which I understand considering it is a huge starship in the saga. The Millennium Falcon is a formidable set, I used to own the 2nd largest LEGO set ever made, with the Millennium Falcon being first (2nd was the Hogwarts Castle, would recommend the castle great set) But then they came out with the dumb 31203 World Map, and the 10276 Colosseum. Then also 10294 Titanic. I think the Falcon deserved to be in first place, it is a great set for AFOLs and the display is very impressive. The one thing I didn't like was it being an exterior only model. I would have liked to see some interior detail, like the holochess, or the main space where Luke practices his skills with a Lightsaber. Over All, I think the Falcon and Walker are great, but couldn't care less for the Destroyer.

Edit: Quick question, does my comment show up in red to you guys? or is that just showing it is me?"

Do you own the older UCS falcon? Because the newer one does have a couple of interior sections including the chess"

Both UCS Millennium Falcons contain some small sections for the interior of the ship. Both have Dejarik (holographic chess) as well.

@SlimBrick1 said:
"I personally have none of these (I only own the UCS X-Wing) But I think I like the AT-AT the best, I think it has more interior than the other models, I like that it is (almost) minifigure scale. I don't care for the Star Destroyer mainly because it has no interior, and it is also FAR from fig scale, Which I understand considering it is a huge starship in the saga. The Millennium Falcon is a formidable set, I used to own the 2nd largest LEGO set ever made, with the Millennium Falcon being first (2nd was the Hogwarts Castle, would recommend the castle great set) But then they came out with the dumb 31203 World Map, and the 10276 Colosseum. Then also 10294 Titanic. I think the Falcon deserved to be in first place, it is a great set for AFOLs and the display is very impressive. The one thing I didn't like was it being an exterior only model. I would have liked to see some interior detail, like the holochess, or the main space where Luke practices his skills with a Lightsaber. Over All, I think the Falcon and Walker are great, but couldn't care less for the Destroyer.

Edit: Quick question, does my comment show up in red to you guys? or is that just showing it is me?"

I still think the old monorails are the biggest set!

I voted Falcon, and if I had to choose only one of the three, that's the one I'd choose. It's the most recognizable and most interesting to look at. Not that I would disparage the other two--all three models are excellent renditions of their source material.

Also, I -do- have to choose only one of the three because at these prices, it was only ever going to be a once every 40 years type of purchase.

Also also, 6990 for life! ^

MOAR GRAY!

@The_Sly_Fox:
Uh...no. I’ve built 10179, and the only interior areas are the cockpit seating area (but nothing behind the back wall), the dorsal gunner seat (but not the room the seat is located in), and the boarding ramp (but not the corridor it leads into). You can check the Bricklink inventory if you like, but there’s no dejarik table tile in that set. In fact, it only comes with four printed elements, excluding minifig parts. The big one is the giant radar dish, and there are 3x 2x2 round tiles with a grille print. And other uses of a dejarik table tile came from the more affordably scaled minifig sets.

There have been three printed dejarik tables (2x2 tile, Spartan shield, 4x4 radar) used across six different MF models (and two soccer sets?), plus a stickered version used for a seventh MF. I think 10179 might be the only $100+ MF model that doesn’t include the dejarik table.

@PurpleDave said:
" @The_Sly_Fox:
Uh...no. I’ve built 10179, and the only interior areas are the cockpit seating area (but nothing behind the back wall), the dorsal gunner seat (but not the room the seat is located in), and the boarding ramp (but not the corridor it leads into). You can check the Bricklink inventory if you like, but there’s no dejarik table tile in that set. In fact, it only comes with four printed elements, excluding minifig parts. The big one is the giant radar dish, and there are 3x 2x2 round tiles with a grille print. And other uses of a dejarik table tile came from the more affordably scaled minifig sets.

There have been three printed dejarik tables (2x2 tile, Spartan shield, 4x4 radar) used across six different MF models (and two soccer sets?), plus a stickered version used for a seventh MF. I think 10179 might be the only $100+ MF model that doesn’t include the dejarik table."

Oh really? I must be getting confused with one of the smaller sets. I have built so many Falcons. Thanks.

@The_Sly_Fox:
Yeah, one of the advertised features of 10179 is that you could pluck the dorsal gun pod out of the hull, reach into the hole and grab the infrastructure, and pick up the whole model (excluding the gun pod) with one hand. I suspect that, due to the way the entire model sagged in various places, that this only worked if they didn’t make any sections of the outer dorsal hull removable, or modify the interior frame in any way to accommodate playset areas.

I have to admit, I was hoping for more side-by-side pics of the 3 sets comparing them to one another, as well as something else to be used for scale.

If I had to buy one of the three, I'd get the AT-AT. But frankly, I'm also happy with smaller versions of the MF and AT-AT, although I do plan to bricklink one enormous foot and perhaps the even more enormous head of the UCS AT-AT, perhaps with a little rust (either via the sticker sheet from the latest Ghostbusters vehicle or just some reddish brown swapped in for the gray) to underline that the wicked witch...er, the automaton oliphant...is *really* dead.

The capital ship doesn't interest me in the least. Its awesomeness in the movie derived entirely from its size, which can't be captured in mere plastic bricks. (And even if I'm wrong, I certainly don't have enough room to do it justice!)

@sklamb:
Well, no, to make that life-size, you’d need a complicated steel frame to build the exterior over. And a laaaaaaarge table.

@Wrecknbuild said:
"I think I hardly ever regretted buying a set, except maybe a few used ones. It is easy to sell them off again when one should wish to do so."

I’m guessing you never bought Batmobile 76112 then… I did :(

The Star Destroyer is my favorite Star Wars ship (probably my favorite spaceship), but the UCS AT-AT wins for me because of the amazing interior!