Review: 77904 Nebulon-B Frigate

I just thought of something: how come TLG thought it would be easy enough to make a structurally sound UCS version of this ship that they put it in the poll from a while back, but they don’t, from my understanding, think that a UCS AT-AT would be feasible? I would think that this ship, with the extremely narrow middle section, would be harder (not like I’ve actually tried to make either). I’m probably missing something.

Fantastic review! And great to see you actually built it from your own parts! I'd really appreciate a review of 75294 too. :)

One of the German sites is saying it will be available through Amazon.com in the US--presumably similar to how Bespin Duel was available at Target.com. Not sure of their source though. They also didn't have a date.

Amazon (even if Prime members only) vs. Target Red Card exclusive... I would expect it to sell out from Amazon much faster unless there are significantly larger quantities being produced.

I also expect it to be on Lego.com.

I'm wondering if they decided to cancel this model and just released the instructions instead ....

I might get it along witn the Bespin Duel, is that a micro Millenium Falcon?

Another Millennium Falcon? Shut up and take my money!

@Astrobricks said:
"How can 4 people on Brickset claim to own this already?"

I'd guess 4 people tried to click "I want this set" but hit "I own" and didn't notice the mistake. :)

@wiggy said:
"Nice review and model, unfortunately it's just another I won't get due to being in United Kingdom. I'll just stare at the photos."

Message me

Are instructions available? Maybe I missed that in the write up.

@Mosquitosquisher7 said:
"I just thought of something: how come TLG thought it would be easy enough to make a structurally sound UCS version of this ship that they put it in the poll from a while back, but they don’t, from my understanding, think that a UCS AT-AT would be feasible? I would think that this ship, with the extremely narrow middle section, would be harder (not like I’ve actually tried to make either). I’m probably missing something."

With this ship you can probably make some kind of technic brick beam connection on the inside pretty easily, whereas the AT-AT is very top heavy and there isn't much you could do about that

I’ve got about 40% of this set in my spare parts and just bought the rest from Bricklink (and an after market sticker from Ultimate Collector Stickers) so I should have this completed in about 7 days for about £40

@newkepler said:
"Are instructions available? Maybe I missed that in the write up."

You can always find out if instructions for a set are available by going to the set page at Brickset.com (always referenced in the reviews - blue numerical link, e.g. 77904) and finding the Instructions link: https://brickset.com/sets/77904 > scroll down below the set image and select the 'Instructions' tab

No exclusive parts!

*visible happiness*

@wiggy said:
"Nice review and model, unfortunately it's just another I won't get due to being in United Kingdom. I'll just stare at the photos."

or just build it, these are all regular pieces you can buy and build it.

I know it's a classic ship but honestly, very ugly. How the hell would it land on the ground wihtout any kind of support? Also, any kamikaze pilot could bring it down quickly by destroying the long middle bridge. I don't mind it being an exclusive and it's a shame such an ugly thing is being considered as a UCS.

Took me awhile to figure where the micro MF was

@legoDad42 said:
"...
The exceptions I think for this is like the 4000029: Windmill. You can build it with basic common parts BUT, you need that 60th Anniversary Limited Edition Box to truly make it a set owned imho. "

I would add the Inside Tour Edition of Market Street in a similar line of thought

@tgewin said:
"One of the German sites is saying it will be available through Amazon.com in the US--presumably similar to how Bespin Duel was available at Target.com. Not sure of their source though. They also didn't have a date.

Amazon (even if Prime members only) vs. Target Red Card exclusive... I would expect it to sell out from Amazon much faster unless there are significantly larger quantities being produced.

I also expect it to be on Lego.com."

Now that you brought up Amazon, I think they are having a Prime Day type event in October (I think either 12-13 or the 13th and 14th).

Maybe it’ll be a special set for that day?

@wiggy said:
"Nice review and model, unfortunately it's just another I won't get due to being in United Kingdom. I'll just stare at the photos."

Then order the parts.

@Galaxy12_Import said:
" @legoDad42 said:
"...
The exceptions I think for this is like the 4000029: Windmill. You can build it with basic common parts BUT, you need that 60th Anniversary Limited Edition Box to truly make it a set owned imho. "

I would add the Inside Tour Edition of Market Street in a similar line of thought"

Yes, totally. Most of the Insider Tour stuff is signed and numbered on the box, so that'd be a must to say you owned a complete set.

At this scale it is a good likeness with clever alternative use of Lego pieces and something different from Star Wars. From the instructions looks very fragile and fiddly, hence more for adults with patience. I would have preferred a clear vertical upright part to the stand or even white to blend in with most walls, as black stands out too much. The positioning of the stand seems important as only using standard single plates along the central span which would bend if the stand was further to the right and more central.

@Mylenium said:
"I'm gonna rebrick it from my own parts as well with some minor deviations and modifications. It's really sad and incomprehensible that LEGO did not bring this out as a regular set. This is exactly the kind of Star Wars model I'm craving for - not too complex, but still looking cool on the shelf and not being the umpteenth X-Wing of Falcon. Given that it mostly consist of small parts it would also probably have been a good fit for the 30 to 35-ish Euro price range and sold well."

It does strike me as odd that Lego makes great sets like this But releases them in very limited quantities yet continues to release remakes of sets seen before on a wide scale. I understand that rarity creates a buzz etc but frankly i would like the ability to buy sets of new vehicles or dioramas rather than see another landspeeder which I won’t buy.

@Mylenium said:
"I'm gonna rebrick it from my own parts as well with some minor deviations and modifications. It's really sad and incomprehensible that LEGO did not bring this out as a regular set. This is exactly the kind of Star Wars model I'm craving for - not too complex, but still looking cool on the shelf and not being the umpteenth X-Wing of Falcon. Given that it mostly consist of small parts it would also probably have been a good fit for the 30 to 35-ish Euro price range and sold well."

It does strike me as odd that Lego makes great sets like this But releases them in very limited quantities yet continues to release remakes of sets seen before on a wide scale. I understand that rarity creates a buzz etc but frankly i would like the ability to buy sets of new vehicles or dioramas rather than see another landspeeder which I won’t buy.

@legoDad42 said:
" (...)I'd say if you have all the parts, figs too, every single part correctly, then you have the official set. (...) "
Uh oh, I buy a lot of sets, and most Star Wars sets, without minifigs, and then usually mod them at least a little bit, if not extensively.

Does that mean that I should remove them from my 'Owned Sets' list on here...?

@darkstonegrey said:
" @legoDad42 said:
" @Agent00Z said:
"This brings up an interesting philosophical idea. If you never bought the set, yet are able to recreate the set exactly using only the LEGO pieces you already have, does it count as having and owning the set? Or can owning a LEGO set only be justified by having the receipt or its exclusive contents such as packaging or original instructions? "

The Chicken or the Egg...the Set or the Brick...?
The question is as old as time itself. ;)

I'd say if you have all the parts, figs too, every single part correctly, then you have the official set.
If the set has a printed or unique element, you must have that unique part to consider it the full official set owned.
Box, instructions, etc. just adds to it, but not to take away for having the full set.
But that's just how I gauge it. Some guys want all of it to be considered a full set owned - the box, the instruction booklet, the official stickers, etc.

The exceptions I think for this is like the 4000029: Windmill. You can build it with basic common parts BUT, you need that 60th Anniversary Limited Edition Box to truly make it a set owned imho. "

I'd also go so far as to consider mold types for the era of the original set to truly consider 'owning' an original set; no substitutions allowed! Very disappointing when buying a used set advertised as original to only find there have been extensive substitutions made by the seller attempting to recreate the complete set."

You need the original instructions to have a 'complete' set IMO. Otherwise it is just a copy, same with if you make alterations to a set, or use incorrect parts to 'complete' it. Im not the only one that agrees about this either, check out most prices in the secondary market of selling a set alone vs selling a set with instructions.

@bananaworld said:
"
@legoDad42 said:
" (...)I'd say if you have all the parts, figs too, every single part correctly, then you have the official set. (...) "
Uh oh, I buy a lot of sets, and most Star Wars sets, without minifigs, and then usually mod them at least a little bit, if not extensively.

Does that mean that I should remove them from my 'Owned Sets' list on here...?
"

Everyone gauge's their sets differently.
So like I have some sets missing figs or parts that I bought used on eBay. I then make notes on what I'm missing, etc but I still put it in the 'owned' section just for convenience and I can keep track of what I need/missing, etc.
Don't remove it, just make notes on what's missing, etc.

Next time you do a review like for Star Wars for example, or anything with source material, could you include pictures of the source? I don’t know if that’s allowed copyright wise, but it would make it so much better if I could easily examine the differences you are referencing. Thanks.

@Mosquitosquisher7:
For a UCS Nebulon B, they would probably incorporate one leg of a stand into the bottom of the prow, and another leg into the engine, and tie the two together to create a rigid rectangular frame. The spar that connects them would have very little weight, so it wouldn't require any additional support. There aren't any joints in the design, so you can make the support structure as robust as you need to.

The AT-AT is top-heavy (much more so than the Nebulon B) with four legs. The only way to link those legs together is to add a snowy base that would significantly increase the cost. And that still leaves a huge brick resting on top of four spindly, jointed legs that are placed together in a narrow row, so there'd be a ton of stress on those joints.

@flipus74:
It was intended for SDCC, which was scheduled for July. It would have been produced and shipped to them before the live event was cancelled.

@Mylenium:
I _loved_ the midi-scale Falcon and ISD, and would absolutely snap up a continued line in this size, which is much more affordable than UCS, and requires much less space to display.

@Astrobricks:
The button is enabled. Read the list of completed user suggestions for further explanation.

@Agent00Z:
If Bert buys a set, chucks the box and instructions, and sells the physical model to Ernie, who owns the set? Bert still has a receipt proving he purchased it, but Ernie just has the parts required to assemble it which could be acquired on Bricklink. If you bought the set, and you lost half the parts but obtained substitutes, do you still own the set even though not all of the parts came in the same box? There's a lot of disagreement on what, exactly, constitutes a set (some claim you even need to save all the packing materials for the set to be "complete"). How someone defines that informs whether or not they will click the "I have this" button when all they did was pull parts from their collection and use online instructions.

@Somnium:
It's a capital ship, which usually weren't designed to land on a planet. They would have orbital docking facilities that would serve a similar function to drydock for naval vessels. Besides needing landing gear that would be robust enough to support the weight, you'd also need massive spaces to land them on that could also support the weight (6" of concrete isn't going to cut it). The Super Star Destroyer is several miles long and would probably have to land directly on bedrock to support its weight without sinking or breaking the landing pad. Oddly enough, most of the TIE family of starfighters _also_ look unsuited to landing on the ground, instead requiring some sort of docking facility with a rack to suspend them. Rebel starfighters have landing gear.

Soooooo sad - the Nebulon B is in my top 10 Star Wars designs, probably equal first with a TIE Bomber. Never expected them to make one, but then they do and make it impossible to actually get hold of.

No more international exclusives...right....

@PurpleDave
I know a base would help support Nebulon B a lot, but UCS sets can generally be separated from their bases.

@Agent00Z said:
"This brings up an interesting philosophical idea. If you never bought the set, yet are able to recreate the set exactly using only the LEGO pieces you already have, does it count as having and owning the set? Or can owning a LEGO set only be justified by having the receipt or its exclusive contents such as packaging or original instructions? "

I suppose this all depends on the purpose of you marking a set as owned and how you categorize them. For example, I still have all of my Classic Space sets from my childhood, but I wanted to expand my collection as much as possible. Purchasing Classic Space sets is absurdly expensive, but quite a few of them are very cheap to piece together on Bricklink. So guess what I did, I pieced together a bunch of them, and yes I consider them owned. At the same time I mark them as minifigures missing as I don’t like buying overpriced minifigures that are in bad shape (mine all look brand new amazingly). Furthermore, I created a label called “Childhood Set” to mark which sets were mine as a kid, and I used the ACM to detail how I obtained the set.

I totally understand the comments about how selling these sets as originals would be fraudulent, but I have 0 intention of selling them. The main purpose for me to mark sets owned is for inventorying my collection.

However, if you are using parts from another set you own to create a set, that would not be right. You either own one or the other, each set requires it’s own unique collection of parts.

Am I the only one that thinks your personal owned list is personal and can be whatever you want it to be?

@MisterBrickster said:
"Am I the only one that thinks your personal owned list is personal and can be whatever you want it to be?"
Schrödinger's set list
;-)

@Mosquitosquisher7:
I haven't laid hands on the vast majority of UCS sets, so I couldn't tell you which ones have removable stands and which have them permanently connected, but there are several that can't really be displayed on a shelf without them. This includes Death Star II, the SSD, both ISDs, the TIE Interceptor and TIE Advanced (the regular TIE Fighter _may_ be able to support its own weight on the wings because there aren't any hinges involved), and the Tantive IV. You _can_ display the Naboo Starfighter without the stand, but it doesn't have any landing gear and sits really low to the ground without it. I think Grievous is actually permanently locked onto his base because he's so top-heavy.

And Grievous shows the difference between an AT-AT and any other set I just listed. People want removable stands because many people like to suspend their UCS spacecraft from their ceilings, at which point an incorporated stand becomes a problem. The first UCS MF (and possibly the second) gets really tricky in that regard because they didn't design it with this method of display in mind, so the landing gear are not retractable. There's no display stand included in the box, and no instructions for how to rebuild the landing gear into their retracted position. But how many people want to hang Grievous from their ceiling? And how many people would want to display the AT-AT suspended from their ceiling? Could they make it removable? Probably, if they really want to. But if they ever do a UCS AT-AT, I suspect they'll go for safety over playability and lock the lower legs into a base that incorporates a Technic frame so they don't have to worry about parts sproinging loose, resulting in their model falling and killing someone's kid.

@MisterBrickster:
Don't say that within earshot of Google!

Well, if a set has to match the original inventory for the set, then I have to wonder how many sets I don't actually own at this point, including 75030 Millennium Falcon Microfighter. Of four copies of the set I've bought & built, all had a mix of different 2x1 jumper plates, all variants, no two sets the same & not one had the correct number of translucent red 1x1 round studs. Even with my classic space sets, a few had variants of inverted slope pieces & other parts. If I were to go by this narrow view of what constitutes owning a set, I might as well clear off my list of owned sets & assume I own none.

no one knows how to get it yet.

@VorpalRyu said:
"Well, if a set has to match the original inventory for the set, then I have to wonder how many sets I don't actually own at this point, including 75030 Millennium Falcon Microfighter. Of four copies of the set I've bought & built, all had a mix of different 2x1 jumper plates, all variants, no two sets the same & not one had the correct number of translucent red 1x1 round studs. Even with my classic space sets, a few had variants of inverted slope pieces & other parts. If I were to go by this narrow view of what constitutes owning a set, I might as well clear off my list of owned sets & assume I own none."

Everyone gauge's it differently. There's no rules.
For me I like to have all the parts (I don't need the box or original instruction booklet), but if I'm missing some I just put it in the notes, etc.
Some guys want the parts and booklet, others want the parts, box, instructions and even the bags.
So it's just personal preference.
Don't clear off your list, you own the sets. Maybe put in the notes the different variant parts you have.

@VorpalRyu:
I got a Monster Fighters polybag car that was supposed to have a pair of dark-bley Type 3 1x1 plates w/ vertical clips. I got one Type 2 (which hadn't been made for over a decade before the color switch) and one Type 4. I figured they averaged out to the correct versions.

This may have been asked, but how will we know when this set goes on sale in the US?

@Chills:
You'll start to see articles informing everyone that it's sold out, of course!

@PurpleDave said:
" @Chills:
You'll start to see articles informing everyone that it's sold out, of course!"

LOL, that's probably right. I just keep searching LEGO.com for 77904... I really want one.

Yet another "We will no longer make regional exclusive sets" regional exclusive set from LEGO.
If they're trying to piss-off their non North-American buyers, they're definitely achieving their goal.

And sorry but no, not having exclusive bricks (it has, at least, one exclusive sticker for the plate) doesn't make this any more acceptable. Building it out of my own parts collection will not provide me with the box, the physical instructions or the official sticker. As such, it doesn't count as having the se neither if you're a collector (which is to whom these sets are designed) nor if you want to resell it later.
Sourcing the bricks for a set from Bricklink isn't an acceptable replacement for having the set if the reason why you don't have the set is because LEGO lied and made it regionally exclusive, thus preventing you from accessing it without, at the very least, having to feed the filthy online scalpers that sell this things for triple the price.

@alfred_the_buttler said: "However, if you are using parts from another set you own to create a set, that would not be right. You either own one or the other, each set requires it’s own unique collection of parts. "

Thats how i do it, if its on my owned list, i could build it without cannibalizing anything else. Bricklinked or not. Like i have 5004590 Bat-Pod on my owned list, of course i bought it piecemeal, but i do NOT have the 2x 44027 BREEZ Flea Machine i bought and parted out for it included in my owned list.

excellent review, very detailed.

@coenstegeman said:
"Oh cool, more US exclusive sets. Thanks for thinking globally, Lego. "

I live in the U.S and they are even rare here. It would be WAY batter if they were not exclusive.