LEGO Star Wars 2025 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[Mandalorianknight]

More $10-50 system sets would be extremely welcome. It feels like generally all we get for that slot are gimmicks (whether they be microfighters, battle packs, or mechs) and jedi starfighters.

The duels making a comeback would be EXCELLENT. And here's the thing- I think they should actually come back SMALLER. Hear me out- Marvel's done a few little $10 sets with two figs. Both themes are owned by disney so I can't see them charging THAT much more of a licensing fee (And honestly I'd be fine with these being $13 instead of $10), and I think it would be a big hit. I won't do a full wishlist here as we have another thread for that, but consider: literally any scene where two characters fight.

[Meaf]

The lack of smaller sets is weird too because it doesn't really feel like other stuff is taking their place? I guess there are the mechs but I was under the impression that those are more taking the small gimmick slots, and even when you account for inflation it just seems like there aren't too many small sets releasing nowadays. I haven't crunched the numbers so I might be completely wrong but when I was younger it felt like there was a lot more to pick from, though I suspect that feeling was in large part thanks to how many battle packs we used to get. Even just one more of those a year plus a duel set would go a long way, because as things stand the only impulse buy kind of sets are the gimmicks and the one normal size battle pack we get each year. 

[CloneCommando99]

On the subject of smaller sets. I actually wonder why Lego only made minifigure packs in 2022. They obviously sold extremely well since they were always out of stock.

I miss them. I didn’t actually mind that they were amassable troops. I just really liked them because they were nice small sets.

 

Lego should really bring them back. And if they do they should rebrand them as either A) named character packs (e.g. Jedi, Imperial Officers, Sith, Bounty Hunters, etc…) or B) special forces packs so army builders don’t buy a crazy amount (unnamed Jedi, Clone Commandos, Death Troopers, Purge Troopers, Inferno Squad, etc…)

I also think a Delta Squad or Bad Batch battlepack would make a very neat cheap set.

[Darth_Bane13]

5 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

More $10-50 system sets would be extremely welcome. It feels like generally all we get for that slot are gimmicks (whether they be microfighters, battle packs, or mechs) and jedi starfighters.

The duels making a comeback would be EXCELLENT. And here's the thing- I think they should actually come back SMALLER. Hear me out- Marvel's done a few little $10 sets with two figs. Both themes are owned by disney so I can't see them charging THAT much more of a licensing fee (And honestly I'd be fine with these being $13 instead of $10), and I think it would be a big hit. I won't do a full wishlist here as we have another thread for that, but consider: literally any scene where two characters fight.

I have no idea why they stopped the $20 duel sets there were so many more they could've done. Yoda vs Dooku, Obi wan vs Vader, Obi wan vs Grievous, etc.

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, Meaf said:

The lack of smaller sets is weird too because it doesn't really feel like other stuff is taking their place? I guess there are the mechs but I was under the impression that those are more taking the small gimmick slots, and even when you account for inflation it just seems like there aren't too many small sets releasing nowadays. I haven't crunched the numbers so I might be completely wrong but when I was younger it felt like there was a lot more to pick from, though I suspect that feeling was in large part thanks to how many battle packs we used to get. Even just one more of those a year plus a duel set would go a long way, because as things stand the only impulse buy kind of sets are the gimmicks and the one normal size battle pack we get each year. 

I went and did a very cursory search, and here's what I found in regards to cheap sets that weren't complete gimmicks like the planets/microfighters/etc:

This is all US based and price changes in the US don't necessarily always correspond to those in other countries

Battle Packs:

Battle packs launched in 2007 for $10, about $15 today. Interestingly, they were very quickly upped to $12 in 2009, which does not at all account for inflation (only taking them to $10.4ish). A pattern of jumping the price about double what inflation was then appears, jumping to $13 in 2011 ($18 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $12.6 price.), $15 in 2017 ($19.20 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $14.2ish price), and $20 in 2022 ($21.5 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $17.91 price).

What comes from this is that lego's repeatedly upped the price of battle packs past inflation. Only rounding up by a dollar each time, but over time that adds up to the price having doubled in a time period where inflation only brings it up about 50%. Luckily, they don't seem to be upping it again yet, which implies that $20 price was set with the expectation of the pretty rough inflation of the past few years. 

TLDR: Battle Packs have routinely had a price jump ahead of inflation, but I'll be ok with the $20 price provided it sticks around for a few more years.

Small "Normal" Sets: 

In the very early days, lego did $6 sets with 2 figs, that would be ~$11.5 nowadays. This was upped to $7 a few years in (about $12 today) and petered out a little before battle packs first hit the scene. I do legitimately believe that these should come back at $10-13, but it has been some time since they were a thing.

The early days of the theme had many sets that launched for $10 ($16-19 today) and held fast at $10 until they petered out around the time battle packs showed up. Similarly, there were a few sets for $15 ($23-28 today), that left around the same time.

After the advent of battle packs, non-gimmick sets for under $19.99 disappeared almost entirely, with some standouts including the battle pack adjacent Battle of Salucami in 2014 for $15 ($19.88 today) 

$20 sets were also a mainstay for most of the theme's life, petering out over time until their eventual death, with the final sets being duels ending in 2021's Mandalore Duel. The Modern Era of LSW killed that price point, as it did the $25 price point, and largely, the $30 price point, which aside from Obi-Wan's starfighter in 2022 and the life day diorama, has also died (with some battle packs now being moved to that $30 price point). The cheapest non-gimmick SW sets in the modern era are $35-40 now.

TLDR: It's not unreasonable to assume that Battle Packs are responsible for killing the (in the modern day) $10-15 normal set price point and the start of the modern era of the theme (2020ish-present) killed the $20-30 normal set price point. Assumably battle packs killed the point due to being a similar price, and lego not wanting to have too many products at that point. Unfortunately, the modern era hasn't brought us any sets at that $20-30 price point, and they haven't given us any replacements either. (I assume the mechs are replacing microfighters given how few of those we now get)

21 minutes ago, CloneCommando99 said:

On the subject of smaller sets. I actually wonder why Lego only made minifigure packs in 2022. They obviously sold extremely well since they were always out of stock.

I'm not actually sure about this- the clone one obviously did, but that was one of the first clone BPs, so back when they'd sell out consistently and not the day 1 sellout and eventual shelfwarm. They had PILES of the hoth one at my local lego stores, and it ended up on sale on the website. I think in the end they just decided the format didn't do well enough to offset whatever distribution issues they were clearly having- we don't get them for the superheroes theme anymore anyway, come to think of it, those blister packs might be entirely dead?

1 minute ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

I have no idea why they stopped the $20 duel sets there were so many more they could've done. Yoda vs Dooku, Obi wan vs Vader, Obi wan vs Grievous, etc.

I don't think they did that poorly, either, it's odd. It speaks to the shift in lego's market philosophy in the modern era of the theme.

 

I'm thinking of doing some more concrete research and making a sort of mini-documentary on lego's shifting market philosophy as it relates to the theme. More and more points seem to come back to that 2020ish shift around the time that lego realized they could sell to adults.

[Darth_Bane13]

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I went and did a very cursory search, and here's what I found in regards to cheap sets that weren't complete gimmicks like the planets/microfighters/etc:

This is all US based and price changes in the US don't necessarily always correspond to those in other countries

Battle Packs:

Battle packs launched in 2007 for $10, about $15 today. Interestingly, they were very quickly upped to $12 in 2009, which does not at all account for inflation (only taking them to $10.4ish). A pattern of jumping the price about double what inflation was then appears, jumping to $13 in 2011 ($18 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $12.6 price.), $15 in 2017 ($19.20 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $14.2ish price), and $20 in 2022 ($21.5 today, inflation off the previous would suggest a $17.91 price).

What comes from this is that lego's repeatedly upped the price of battle packs past inflation. Only rounding up by a dollar each time, but over time that adds up to the price having doubled in a time period where inflation only brings it up about 50%. Luckily, they don't seem to be upping it again yet, which implies that $20 price was set with the expectation of the pretty rough inflation of the past few years. 

TLDR: Battle Packs have routinely had a price jump ahead of inflation, but I'll be ok with the $20 price provided it sticks around for a few more years.

Small "Normal" Sets: 

In the very early days, lego did $6 sets with 2 figs, that would be ~$11.5 nowadays. This was upped to $7 a few years in (about $12 today) and petered out a little before battle packs first hit the scene. I do legitimately believe that these should come back at $10-13, but it has been some time since they were a thing.

The early days of the theme had many sets that launched for $10 ($16-19 today) and held fast at $10 until they petered out around the time battle packs showed up. Similarly, there were a few sets for $15 ($23-28 today), that left around the same time.

After the advent of battle packs, non-gimmick sets for under $19.99 disappeared almost entirely, with some standouts including the battle pack adjacent Battle of Salucami in 2014 for $15 ($19.88 today) 

$20 sets were also a mainstay for most of the theme's life, petering out over time until their eventual death, with the final sets being duels ending in 2021's Mandalore Duel. The Modern Era of LSW killed that price point, as it did the $25 price point, and largely, the $30 price point, which aside from Obi-Wan's starfighter in 2022 and the life day diorama, has also died (with some battle packs now being moved to that $30 price point). The cheapest non-gimmick SW sets in the modern era are $35-40 now.

TLDR: It's not unreasonable to assume that Battle Packs are responsible for killing the (in the modern day) $10-15 normal set price point and the start of the modern era of the theme (2020ish-present) killed the $20-30 normal set price point. Assumably battle packs killed the point due to being a similar price, and lego not wanting to have too many products at that point. Unfortunately, the modern era hasn't brought us any sets at that $20-30 price point, and they haven't given us any replacements either. (I assume the mechs are replacing microfighters given how few of those we now get)

 

I'm thinking of doing some more concrete research and making a sort of mini-documentary on lego's shifting market philosophy as it relates to the theme. More and more points seem to come back to that 2020ish shift around the time that lego realized they could sell to adults.

This was a very interesting in depth analysis. 

For battle packs I can live with the $20 price point because we've been getting better figures for the most part. From around 2016 - 2020 there was a real problem of battle packs only having 1 or 2 of the figures people actually wanted to army build, like the 2016 First order battle pack for example.

I think it's rather interesting that the "small normal sets" really only existed in the "classic era" of LSW, as soon as battle packs came in 2007 they were done for. Unfortunately I think that type of set will never come back at this point.

I'd happily watch/read that mini-documentary.

 

[SketchBrick]

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I'm thinking of doing some more concrete research and making a sort of mini-documentary on lego's shifting market philosophy as it relates to the theme. More and more points seem to come back to that 2020ish shift around the time that lego realized they could sell to adults.

I would be grateful to see more research on this. It's become increasingly obvious how adult-focused the Star Wars theme is these days, and the lack of "pocket-money" sets compounds this. There are lots of good concepts (including revisiting old ones) that don't have to break the bank, and offer kids and adults alike both fun small builds and popular minifigs.

[Samppu]

On 2/2/2025 at 10:43 AM, CloneCommando99 said:

I actually kinda want it to be banned here in the UK, to see if it actually benefits our kids I mean. I’m sure it would since doomscrolling is ruining attention spans. Also it’d be interesting to see if it works since someone across the pond ended the ban before it even lasted a day and had an effect.

Also, I beg to differ. Until a year and an half ago I used to be a scout leader. And the kids there were very into Lego. In fact quite a lot of them were hyped for the 2022 AT TE. Not so much for the 2023 Coruscant Guard gunship and 327th BP.
I’m currently a cadet instructor, and whilst it is an older demographic (mid teenagers), the boys seem to still be into the occasional Lego set, even play-sets. The girls seem to like collecting the botanical collection from time to time.

Whilst it is a problem, I think it comes down to the responsibility of the parents, not the kids. Parents can always stop them wasting hours upon hours on TikTok and video games by simply setting screen time limits on their devices. Kids easily get addicted to screens.

Totally agree on every word you said about the ban.

Though keep in mind that the scout kids do not represent the norm necessarily, because the smartphone addicted kids won't join the scouts in the first place.

But yeap, if I have kids, they shall get their first smartphone as a graduation gift from college.

Playstation is ok with sensible screen time, because action games actually develop reaction time and motorics even, whereas whatsapp or whatever the kids use to communicate can be more sensibly used on an actual computer in order not to become an outcast among their peers.

But smartphones nope. There is little to encourage their use as a kid, and I say this as a brain researcher. They are designed to be addictive, and they succeed in it very well, whereas the benefits from a kid's perspective are minor in comparison, because the kids, especially the younger ones, probably don't need things like Google maps, email, or internet bank anyway. If my kids die because they did not have a smartphone, I shall call it evolution then.

So my true concern is not whether my kids will love TikTok instead of Lego, but whether my kids will love Ninjago instead of Star Wars......

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

This was a very interesting in depth analysis. 

For battle packs I can live with the $20 price point because we've been getting better figures for the most part. From around 2016 - 2020 there was a real problem of battle packs only having 1 or 2 of the figures people actually wanted to army build, like the 2016 First order battle pack for example.

I think it's rather interesting that the "small normal sets" really only existed in the "classic era" of LSW, as soon as battle packs came in 2007 they were done for. Unfortunately I think that type of set will never come back at this point.

I'd happily watch/read that mini-documentary.

Thank you!
I agree, if they don't up the price for another few years I'm ok with the $20 point, especially since the figures are a good deal more detailed than they were at $15. Value wise I don't think the desirability of these figures should count though. A named character is worth as much as a generic stormie/rebel/p2cloneshiny/etc. Might make the set better or worst, but the actual cost to produce remains the same.

I agree but am not completely without hope in that regard. Marvel had a few $10 sets, and those, in 2023/2024, were to my knowledge the cheapest non-gimmick sets ever availible for the theme.

1 hour ago, SketchBrick said:

I would be grateful to see more research on this. It's become increasingly obvious how adult-focused the Star Wars theme is these days, and the lack of "pocket-money" sets compounds this. There are lots of good concepts (including revisiting old ones) that don't have to break the bank, and offer kids and adults alike both fun small builds and popular minifigs.

Thank you. I think I will start doing some research this week, we'll see what I can do. I don't know much about video production, but I also know that if I just posted a long article somewhere it wouldn't have anything near the level of reach a youtube video would.

1 hour ago, Samppu said:

whether my kids will love Ninjago instead of Star Wars......

I wouldn't mind this when I have kids, I can still share the lego hobby with them without feeling bad about keeping my collection separate.

[CloneCommando99]

7 hours ago, Samppu said:

So my true concern is not whether my kids will love TikTok instead of Lego, but whether my kids will love Ninjago instead of Star Wars......

Yeah. I feel like one of my priorities when I have kids is making sure I can establish some common or adjacent interests.

Top Priorities for interests:

DC Comics 

Star Wars

Lego (gonna hit them with the BPs, baseplates and spare bricks as soon as possible)

Dogs (will probably get a Lab as soon as the oldest turns 5)

If I fail. I will just restart the whole project.

(I joke)

[Llewop]

17 hours ago, Samppu said:

So my true concern is not whether my kids will love TikTok instead of Lego, but whether my kids will love Ninjago instead of Star Wars......

My daughter is 2.5 and she loved the Peppa Pig sets and she’ll love the Bluey ones in the summer. I’m hoping she’ll take an interest in Lego not too fussed about what theme though. 

 

15 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I wouldn't mind this when I have kids, I can still share the lego hobby with them without feeling bad about keeping my collection separate.

My daughter and my son (when he gets born in a few weeks) are going to have all my old old sets (adventures, city sets from the 90s, 00s Harry Potter). Eventually with the way Lego is going some of my collection will probably make them some money. But I’m not going to pressure them on what themes they like god only knows what themes they’ll have in a few years from now. 
 

I know it’s odd but I wish Lego would lay off on having as many licensed themes as they do these days I do miss some of the old school ones. In the same breath those licenses are keeping Lego alive, just sucks there’s no castle theme, or adventures theme like I had growing up back in the day

 

[Darth_Bane13]

17 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Value wise I don't think the desirability of these figures should count though. A named character is worth as much as a generic stormie/rebel/p2cloneshiny/etc. Might make the set better or worst, but the actual cost to produce remains the same.

I don't see why the desirability wouldn't count. Yeah the cost to produce is the same but value is subjective, if a battle pack has 2 stormtroopers and 2 officers many would consider it worse than a battle pack that has 3 stormtroopers and 1 officer. If you wanted to build an army of stormtroopers the value of the latter would therefore be superior.

[Samppu]

 

15 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Yeah. I feel like one of my priorities when I have kids is making sure I can establish some common or adjacent interests.

Top Priorities for interests:

DC Comics 

Star Wars

Lego (gonna hit them with the BPs, baseplates and spare bricks as soon as possible)

Dogs (will probably get a Lab as soon as the oldest turns 5)

If I fail. I will just restart the whole project.

(I joke)

Hahah, glad to see I'm not the only one with a project! Though I have cats, but yeah.

6 hours ago, Llewop said:

My daughter and my son (when he gets born in a few weeks) [--]

I know it’s odd but I wish Lego would lay off on having as many licensed themes as they do these days I do miss some of the old school ones. In the same breath those licenses are keeping Lego alive, just sucks there’s no castle theme, or adventures theme like I had growing up back in the day

Oh, congratulations! 

Agree that I miss the adventures line, too. At least I hope we could get more remakes of the old figures in the future cmf series in the style of the Johnny Thunder in a recent series:

Edited February 5 by Samppu

[Mandalorianknight]

4 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

I don't see why the desirability wouldn't count. Yeah the cost to produce is the same but value is subjective, if a battle pack has 2 stormtroopers and 2 officers many would consider it worse than a battle pack that has 3 stormtroopers and 1 officer. If you wanted to build an army of stormtroopers the value of the latter would therefore be superior.

my point is simply that as a more objective measure of the value of the item, rather than a subjective one, more massable characters aren't necessarily more expensive to produce (probably cheaper since they can re-use the prints across each fig). A set with 3 stormtroopers shouldn't cost more than one with 2 stormtroopers, an officer, and a crewman (and the same build), it should be less, right? 

Think about it this way- Characters like Malgus go for $150 or so secondhand, but you wouldn't want lego to sell a Malgus microfighter for $160 just because he's a desirable character. 

[GlacierPhoenix]

12 hours ago, Samppu said:

 

Hahah, glad to see I'm not the only one with a project! Though I have cats, but yeah.

Oh, congratulations! 

Agree that I miss the adventures line, too. At least I hope we could get more remakes of the old figures in the future cmf series in the style of the Johnny Thunder in a recent series:

Totally not related at all to Star Wars but LEGO has recently done a Pippin Reed and the parts for a Harry Cane figures in sets.  

[Darth_Bane13]

18 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

my point is simply that as a more objective measure of the value of the item, rather than a subjective one, more massable characters aren't necessarily more expensive to produce (probably cheaper since they can re-use the prints across each fig). A set with 3 stormtroopers shouldn't cost more than one with 2 stormtroopers, an officer, and a crewman (and the same build), it should be less, right? 

Think about it this way- Characters like Malgus go for $150 or so secondhand, but you wouldn't want lego to sell a Malgus microfighter for $160 just because he's a desirable character. 

My original point is that from roughly 2016-2020 Lego would knowingly only include 1 or 2 of the figure people wanted so they'd have to buy more of the set to get the number of figures they wanted. The 2016 first order battle pack as an example, only gave us 1 regular first order stormtrooper, and back then people just wanted to build an army of FO stormtroopers. Lego nowadays has gotten better about this, so I don't mind paying a bit extra if I get the figures I actually want. The Malgus example has nothing to do with my point, I was just listing the reasons why I personally could live with $20 battle packs.

[CloneCommando99]

Who do we think could be included in this year’s advent calendar? I’d say that any of: Thrawn, Stormtrooper, Clone Pilot, shock trooper, Skiff Luke, Obi-Wan, Qui Gon, Darth Maul, Sabine, Bo Katan, Vader and Jedi Bob are all likely candidates.

As for the Christmas figure, I’d say that CT2512 (what I designate the hasbro Christmas clone) is a possibility, when looking at the rest of the year.

 

Also the AT ST has been confirmed as UCS by brickmerge. Maybe it’s finally time to buy the parts I need to build the imperial base of my dreams? 

I’d just hope we’d get a normal Battlepack of versatile imperial troopers soon to garrison it. Night troopers and Gideon’s boys just aren’t that versatile.

Edited February 5 by CloneCommando99

[Samppu]

2 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Who do we think could be included in this year’s advent calendar? I’d say that any of: Thrawn, Stormtrooper, Clone Pilot, shock trooper, Skiff Luke, Obi-Wan, Qui Gon, Darth Maul, Sabine, Bo Katan, Vader and Jedi Bob are all likely candidates.

As for the Christmas figure, I’d say that CT2512 (what I designate the hasbro Christmas clone) is a possibility, when looking at the rest of the year.

 

Also the AT ST has been confirmed as UCS by brickmerge. Maybe it’s finally time to buy the parts I need to build the imperial base of my dreams? 

I’d just hope we’d get a normal Battlepack of versatile imperial troopers soon to garrison it. Night troopers and Gideon’s boys just aren’t that versatile.

Imperial battlepacks, yes please, but I see that unlikely since there will already be that night trooper one.

The Christmas calendars seem to me like the worst missed opportunity to include obscure and desirable figures, like Boss Nass, Dexter, Imperial dignitary, an unseen Jabba's guard or alien... In Harry Potter they do exactly that after all by including obscure ghosts for example.
In Star Wars we rarely get any novel figures in calendars, which were not available elsewhere, and usually pretty easily - the Bespin pilot perhaps was one welcome exception, which comes to mind, but not many others...

 

[Nolaheru]

45 minutes ago, Samppu said:

In Star Wars we rarely get any novel figures in calendars, which were not available elsewhere, and usually pretty easily - the Bespin pilot perhaps was one welcome exception, which comes to mind, but not many others...

We also got General Merrick from Rogue One in 2018 which I found pretty cool.

[Kit Figsto]

3 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

My original point is that from roughly 2016-2020 Lego would knowingly only include 1 or 2 of the figure people wanted so they'd have to buy more of the set to get the number of figures they wanted. The 2016 first order battle pack as an example, only gave us 1 regular first order stormtrooper, and back then people just wanted to build an army of FO stormtroopers. Lego nowadays has gotten better about this, so I don't mind paying a bit extra if I get the figures I actually want. The Malgus example has nothing to do with my point, I was just listing the reasons why I personally could live with $20 battle packs.

Right, but not necessarily everyone has the same sentiment there.  I can see the flip side of this being just as common, with parents buying a set with more variety for their kid, or a kid choosing the set with different figures as opposed to three or four of the same.  I can 1000% picture my parents, if kid me was given the option between a set with 4 Clones and, say, the Clone/Jedi BP, encouraging me to choose the Clone/Jedi set because it gives me more variety to play with.  Frankly, both as a kid and now, that's the one I would've gone with anyway.

[JohnTPT17]

2 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Right, but not necessarily everyone has the same sentiment there.  I can see the flip side of this being just as common, with parents buying a set with more variety for their kid, or a kid choosing the set with different figures as opposed to three or four of the same.  I can 1000% picture my parents, if kid me was given the option between a set with 4 Clones and, say, the Clone/Jedi BP, encouraging me to choose the Clone/Jedi set because it gives me more variety to play with.  Frankly, both as a kid and now, that's the one I would've gone with anyway.

I'll support you in your unpopular opinion - there's definitely good that can come from a "Battle Pack" that's purely four identical minifigures, but I also really like the ones with more variety between the figures and/or with named characters.  I'm probably only going to buy one of the pack myself - maybe two on a rare occasion. Though I imagine that those who like variety are only buying one, while those who want multiples want identical (or at least easily massable) figures.

Also, I don't really mind $20 Battle Packs. Yeah, I would love it they were a little cheaper, but CMFs are also $5 each, which means it's the same cost per minifig at the end of the day (though CMFs usually have more detail, though Battle Packs have more of a build) - in a bubble, I at least don't think they're a "scam" or anything. That, and you can usually find them 20 percent off within a few months and basically get it for $4 per minifig, which is much more doable.

[Brickwraith]

2 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Right, but not necessarily everyone has the same sentiment there.  I can see the flip side of this being just as common, with parents buying a set with more variety for their kid, or a kid choosing the set with different figures as opposed to three or four of the same.  I can 1000% picture my parents, if kid me was given the option between a set with 4 Clones and, say, the Clone/Jedi BP, encouraging me to choose the Clone/Jedi set because it gives me more variety to play with.  Frankly, both as a kid and now, that's the one I would've gone with anyway.

I was the exact same way as a kid. Honestly, still the same now. I've only ever intentionally gotten one of any specific battle pack, so I've preferred sets like the bounty hunter battle pack, praetorian guard, and the clone troopers vs droidekas over stuff like geonosis troopers that are more massable but more obscure.

[BrickBob Studpants]

7 hours ago, Samppu said:

The Christmas calendars seem to me like the worst missed opportunity to include obscure and desirable figures, like Boss Nass, Dexter, Imperial dignitary, an unseen Jabba's guard or alien... In Harry Potter they do exactly that after all by including obscure ghosts for example.

No way they‘ll ever introduce a new moulded piece in an AC, and for good reason. ACs reach their EOL extremely quickly, even more so than CMF series. It‘d be a waste of money. Sure, you could argue they could use the pieces for other sets afterwards, but if that was the plan, they‘d just do it vice versa and introduce the pieces in regular sets first, like they‘re doing now

[Samppu]

8 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

No way they‘ll ever introduce a new moulded piece in an AC, and for good reason. ACs reach their EOL extremely quickly, even more so than CMF series. It‘d be a waste of money. Sure, you could argue they could use the pieces for other sets afterwards, but if that was the plan, they‘d just do it vice versa and introduce the pieces in regular sets first, like they‘re doing now

Good point, though I still disagree. Their shelflife may be short, but there would be more incentive to buy them in the first place, if they included even one new mold in the calendar.

Past 5 years I would have happily bought one for me before Christmas, but there has been no incentive to do so, because there has been nothing of interest or value in them: five figures, two of which are silly holiday figures and three which are cheaply available elsewhere. Even one new mold would have drastically changed this perceived value at least in my eyes.

Moreover, the missed opportunity is that the calendars could include some of the more obscure characters, which were hard to include in actual sets, like Dexter or like they have done in Harry Potter with the phantoms.

Edited February 6 by Samppu

[BrickBob Studpants]

1 minute ago, Samppu said:

Good point, though I still disagree. Their shelflife may be short, but there would be more incentive to buy them in the first place, if they included even one new mold in the calendar.

Why waste money on a new piece for a set with a shelflife of like 3 months when they could insert it into a regular set that will stay on shelves for at least 1.5 years?  It‘s simply a much safer investment. I highly doubt a new piece would be good enough of an incentive to offset that loss. The ACs would have to sell like crazy for that to happen. 

Besides, ACs are some of the least versatile sets in existence, from a sales perspective. You could buy any random set as a birthday gift, a reward, or for any other event. But what kid cares about an AC after Xmas?