LEGO has designed a set that can't be taken apart

Posted by ,

Traditionally, LEGO sets are designed to be assembled and, should you wish, taken apart to allow you to use the pieces for your own creations.

However, the company's latest release, 75313 AT-AT, has broken from this tradition and some sub-assemblies within it are impossible to dismantle without resorting to using sharp metal implements.


The Technic frames introduced in 2009 are versatile elements that help create sturdy models. However, they have to be used with care because it's possible to connect elements to them in a way that cannot be dismantled.

For example, if you were to position one of these...

...inside a frame across the width, then insert two 2l axles through the adjacent holes, it is impossible to get it out again. Designers of Technic sets know this, and I cannot think of one instance where such a problem has arisen in an official set. However, an issue seems to have slipped through the net in 75313 AT-AT.

Take a look at the following, which is part of the walker's legs. The orange pin is inserted into the end centre hole, then an axle connector is attached to it. No problems so far.

Then, a green pin connector is positioned in the gap to the left of the axle connector before a 4l axle is pushed through it.

As a result, the assembly cannot be dismantled conventionally: there is only one way to do it. The green pin connector has a slit in it large enough for a knife blade. It's just about possible to use one to move the 4l axle fractionally, just enough to grip the end of it. However, it comes at the cost of damaging the axle.

And that's not all... When it comes to attaching the body to the underframe, axles are inserted into holes in the side and, while they do not mate with an axle hole inside the body, they cannot be removed without putting the mechanised beast on its side, shaking it, and hoping for the best.

This is not something I'd expect to see in a flagship £700 set. Is this an isolated example or have you noticed similar problems in the sets you've built recently?

Thanks to merman for bringing this to my attention.

250 comments on this article

Gravatar
By in Slovenia,

I think this goes against the core of Lego's principles - You are suppose to be able to not just build, but also take apart and rebuild any model. And pushing an axle into a connector inside a frame is such a basic mistake...

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

This is very disappointing. Wlech!

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

That's not how it's supposed to be, I guess... :-)

I already had a similair problem a few years ago with the 42056 Porsche, altough it wasn't as final as this one seems to be. At building point 362 (page 259) you have to put an 6L axle in a frame. On the inside of the frame the axle disappears in a few technic beams and finally in an axle connector. On the outside it sticks just 1L out, which is impossible to get grip on with just your fingers. I had to use some tools to get it out.

Gravatar
By in Poland,

It was predictable. Lego's efforts on capitalizing on the AFOL market make them shift their focus from playability and reusability to making display pieces. Such large sets are simply being built once and then put in a display case or gather dust. There are much fewer sets now that spark creativity on the user end than there were 20 years ago. Though I may be speaking through nostalgia so I might be wrong.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Crazy how they let that slip, I'd call for a design revision

Gravatar
By in United States,

I think Lego guessed that enough people arent going to be taking the set apart once its built where they felt it was worth doing. I wouldn't scrap a UCS set just for some parts - too much work and effort went into making it.

I will say I've noticed sets in general are more robust and from a structural standpoint, amazing. Even in themes like city there are sets that are structurally brilliant, but to a kid wanting to take apart the set to make something else, are headaches.

Lego is in a tough position here. On the one hand, taking sets apart encourages creativity. Once upon a time they even encouraged alternate builds on the backs of boxes ("just imagine..."), which aligns with the foundations the company was built on. But from a money making standpoint, by designing models that are hard or tedious to take apart it encourages people to buy more. "If I can't take this set apart for the pieces, I might as well buy new ones."

Gravatar
By in Australia,

LEGO’s entire appeal is being able to tear it down and build something new. While I intend on keeping my AT-AT built, I do also intend on taking it apart to rebuild. This is unacceptable in my eyes and I hope they pull the set from shelves and redesign it, not unlike what they did with the Wall-E ideas set a few years ago. What if somebody makes a mistake while building it and then can’t fix it because the pieces can’t be taken apart?

I’m absolutely shocked that when this was posted in other communities such as Reddit and Facebook it was met with apathy and even dismissal. The reddit post I saw was heavily downvoted, comments saying nothing was wrong and the OP was even accused of photoshopping it. What has the lego community come to?

Gravatar
By in Australia,

I take apart built sets to then display other sets, I don't have the space to store a built set or partially built set.
Not that I'm buying this, but I think it's a disappointing decision or a major oversight.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I'd looked at the first one when it came up in comments recently. I figured at least 2 ways to avoid the problem while keeping the pin connector on the end. The easiest is just to leave out the 2L green connector.
The second problem looks to stem from trying to keep the construction symmetric. For that sort of thing, Technic is usually assymetric (different parts on each side) and built one side to the other. This looks like a System builder solution to a Technic problem.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

I expect that TLC will respond to this issue. They will not let this pass after the AFOL crowd review. :-)

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I'm quite disappointed in LEGO for allowing this.

Like others, of course I'm not going to part out a UCS set but I do at least want the ability to disassemble it for the possibility of rebuilding later and I don't count having small sub-builds due to design as being dismantled. That's just not what LEGO represents. Moves like this scream MOC, not official builds that supposedly go through rigorous testing.

@Huw, I don't know if you've reached out to LEGO but I hope they do you the decency of replying if you have.

Gravatar
By in Slovakia,

I do not mind about such issues, such things are only motivating to find a better solution

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

"It has presumably been done like this to stop the protruding end of the orange pin from being pushed back into the frame, but it all seems totally unnecessary because when it's used to attach the leg to the underside of the walker later on in the build it's evident that a normal 2l black pin in the hole would have sufficed."

I thought it was done this way so the technic frame was unable to detach from the turntable. Other, less permanent, methods to achieve this are possible. I think it is a human error that passed the QC... stuff like that happens (remember the Wall-E?). They'll probably offer a service pack with a fix for those who are interested.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

No surprises here, they've been going down a path, that leads exactly to this, severely overpriced display models for people to leave assembled forever. (Yes I'm aware of that one Exo Force combiner model)

Gravatar
By in Finland,

It is weird but for this set in particular, I don't think really anybody would want to part it out

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@JayCal said:
"I thought it was done this way so the technic frame was unable to detach from the turntable. Other, less permanent, methods to achieve this are possible. I think it is a human error that passed the QC... stuff like that happens (remember the Wall-E?). They'll probably offer a service pack with a fix for those who are interested."

I wondered this myself, but as you say, there are other methods to do this.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Let's hope this stays an isolated case.

I mean... with all the titanic-sized sets coming out it's not surprising that something like this slipped in with one of their largest sets ever made!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Taking sets apart is a fundamental aspect of Lego. Not just for creating your own stuff, but for transport, and the fun of building it again. A lot of sets (probably, including this one) will never fit back in their original box buit up, so taking them apart to transport them is important. And building Lego is a huge part of the experience of a set. Only getting to experience that once would be a huge disappointment. I don't think I've ever owned a single set that I have just built once and never taken apart again. Even my Modulars have been rebuilt a few times over.

Gravatar
By in Norway,

Easy fix: just leave out the green tube. Will still need tiny fingers or pliars to get the axle out, though…

But I agree the original is probably just a badly designed solution - it will be exciting to hear what LEGO has to say about it…

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,


After reading the title of this article, I thought for a moment that LEGO planned to include a free tube of Kragle with every new set.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Reminds me of the time when they used to make stickers that spanned multiple pieces. Oh man I hated that!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
[I figured at least 2 ways to avoid the problem while keeping the pin connector on the end. The easiest is just to leave out the 2L green connector.
The second problem looks to stem from trying to keep the construction symmetric. For that sort of thing, Technic is usually assymetric (different parts on each side) and built one side to the other. This looks like a System builder solution to a Technic problem. ]]

More than that, it looks like a problem that's been generated by having rather too many parts that do ever so similar things, when, with a little ingenuity, it would be possible to achieve the same end without resorting to newer moulds. Building some of the old 80s Technic sets with my boy has demonstrated that - and we've even been able to make improvements to some of them, still without using newer pins/axles/frames/etc. But then, I am an engineer:-)

Gravatar
By in Austria,

TLGs quality control is slipping more and more...

Sad to see what this company is becoming.

Gravatar
By in Ireland,

Two examples come to mind.
In 8448 on page 183 you put a 1x5 half beam on a 1x5 Technic plate. I've never been able to get those apart without non-Lego tools.
Y-wing 75249 page 50, a tan 2x2 plate with 2 studs goes onto a white hull piece/ inverted curved slope. It's possible to remove but not easy; no groove to get a brick separator under, can't put the brick separator on the studs and no hole underneath to push it up.

Gravatar
By in Singapore,

This is a nearly 7,000-piece set after all, with nearly 1,300 steps excluding subassemblies and the UCS plaque, and all the complications associated with designing an AT-AT at this scale (unlike something like the Millennium Falcon or the Imperial Star Destroyer). I'm not surprised this slipped past QA. For all we know they eliminated over 300 similar design issues and happened to fail to address these select few. "The best" is perfection, but unfortunately no QA process is perfect, even for the largest and most expensive sets. Not an excuse, but reality.

What I'm wondering now is if LEGO will address this at all, and how, if it's even possible. They couldn't possibly recall the sets now like they could with 42113. And we haven't heard about the reprints of 75309 boxes yet. But it is nevertheless a serious issue that this subassembly can't be taken apart. I'm just not sure what the resolution is, besides the destructive workaround.

It's worth noting that this seems to be largely associated with axles with stops, though, so it could very well be a design flaw with them. Perhaps they should be redesigned. But how, while retaining their intended purpose?

Gravatar
By in United States,

Remember that time when all the LEGO sets showed alternate models on the back of the box and had the slogan "Just Imagine..."? Those times are long gone. Welcome to the new age of AFOL collectors who do nothing but build the set once and leave it on display to gather dust for the rest of eternity.

Really sad to see what the company has ended up becoming. And I can imagine it will only get worse as they continue to expand into the "adult" market.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

More proof that these expensive sets are glorified ornaments. No one will break up their Titanic, AT AT or Old Trafford for parts and build something else with it.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Sandinista said:
"I will say I've noticed sets in general are more robust and from a structural standpoint, amazing. Even in themes like city there are sets that are structurally brilliant, but to a kid wanting to take apart the set to make something else, are headaches. "

Sure, in general, but not always. I tried moving 31120 Medieval Castle. Big mistake! You so much as sneeze in that thing’s direction and it collapses.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

I noticed that what was considered an illegal building technique sometimes gets into series production nowadays, like wedging a plate/tile between two studs. At least they don't have to worry about transparent pieces fusing together anymore since they changed the material from PC to MABS. But what I cannot accept is weaker clutch power, larger clearances and colour variations, bigger and more visible sprue marks, scratched window pieces all for the sake of "cost optimization".
And did anyone try to disassemble recent Technic sets? The new, softer and more slippery pins without side slots are much more difficult to pull out by hand.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

I belive the 42115 Lamborgini has simular problems. I've never tried taking it apart, but it has a lot of axels dissapearing in a frame.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Since there is a solution with alternate parts, I think TLG could release a recall kit to address this issue, containing the required parts to make the subassemblies possible to dismantle and the revised pages of the instruction manual. I remember when they have misspelled the printed text in the flux capacitor of 21103 and TLG released a corrected part - and the DeLorean set was much more cheaper than the AT-AT.

I am quite sure that LEGO does an internal try-out of the building instructions before releasing the set, so one way to avoid issues like this arriving to the customer is to disassemble the set in their quality process.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@R0Sch said:
"And did anyone try to disassemble recent Technic sets? The new, softer and more slippery pins without side slots are much more difficult to pull out by hand."

They are definitely a retrograde step and almost as bad as the ones from the 1980s. If I'm breaking a >=2021 Technic set down for parts I discard the new pins so they don't get mixed up with the others. I have a lifetime's supply of them!

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Looks like the only way to take this one down is with a cable gun on a snowspeeder

Gravatar
By in Italy,

@davejbur said:
"More than that, it looks like a problem that's been generated by having rather too many parts that do ever so similar things, when, with a little ingenuity, it would be possible to achieve the same end without resorting to newer moulds. Building some of the old 80s Technic sets with my boy has demonstrated that - and we've even been able to make improvements to some of them, still without using newer pins/axles/frames/etc. But then, I am an engineer:-)"
Probably it could also be this the reason. I like when there are new moulds, but I've seen recently too many (and probably unnecessary) new moulds that have been used, like, once or twice, and straight-up abandoned.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Rebuild the world, as long as it's not Hoth.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@Huw said:
" @R0Sch said:
"And did anyone try to disassemble recent Technic sets? The new, softer and more slippery pins without side slots are much more difficult to pull out by hand."

They are definitely a retrograde step and almost as bad as the ones from the 1980s. If I'm breaking a >=2021 Technic set down for parts I discard the new pins so they don't get mixed up with the others. I have a lifetime's supply of them!

"


Glad to hear I'm not the only one who noticed. And I don't like the fact they don't make a clicking noise when inserted. Can't we bring the old ones back please?

Regarding the AT-AT problem, I assume with the large clearances and the flexibility of the parts it is possible to disassemble without damaging any parts by pushing and pulling the grey connector from side to side until the axle is pushed out just enough to get a fingernail under it's head.

Gravatar
By in Hungary,

Weird this wasn't brought up in the review.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

@DFX said:
"Since there is a solution with alternate parts, I think TLG could release a recall kit to address this issue, containing the required parts to make the subassemblies possible to dismantle and the revised pages of the instruction manual. I remember when they have misspelled the printed text in the flux capacitor of 21103 and TLG released a corrected part - and the DeLorean set was much more cheaper than the AT-AT.

I am quite sure that LEGO does an internal try-out of the building instructions before releasing the set, so one way to avoid issues like this arriving to the customer is to disassemble the set in their quality process."


My thoughts exactly! And revised instructions are not a new thing... I even got a black&white revised instruction page in set 5510 because the original instructions had a weak steering transmission. And that set was from 1986! So yeah, they can adress the situation and offer the fix for the interested.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@one_wag said:
"More proof that these expensive sets are glorified ornaments. No one will break up their Titanic, AT AT or Old Trafford for parts and build something else with it. "

I'd be surprised if the permanent official build was intentional as opposed to an oversight, but if it was intentional I completely agree that TLG (or individual(s) within) would have made exactly the same assessment as you have. It's still not right, but the actual impact will likely be limited to a very small number of buyers.

These UCS Star Wars sets probably don't make much sense as parts packs, but as I've never considered buying one, who knows?

There would surely be a vicious backlash from AFOLs and others if this one instance signifies any change in TLG's stance and an intention to adopt similar permanent builds on smaller, more widely purchased sets.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@LegoDavid said:
"Remember that time when all the LEGO sets showed alternate models on the back of the box and had the slogan "Just Imagine..."? Those times are long gone. Welcome to the new age of AFOL collectors who do nothing but build the set once and leave it on display to gather dust for the rest of eternity.

Really sad to see what the company has ended up becoming. And I can imagine it will only get worse as they continue to expand into the "adult" market. "


I’m not so sure, I tend to modify most if not all of my sets in some way and I am sure I have plenty of company.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Didn’t someone mention an error In the instructions as well for the AT-AT?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Just a thought, but the axles are the version with stops on the end, right? I assume the intent, in both cases, is that you're not supposed to push them in all the way as far as they'll go, but leave just enough sticking out that you can get a fingernail under the stop if you need to pull them out?

It just isn't communicated clearly in the instructions, if that is indeed the case.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Shropshire said:
"Rebuild the world, as long as it's not Hoth."

Or Alderaan.

Gravatar
By in United States,

The things we’ll do to keep from aging hips.

Gravatar
By in United States,

It’s not a lack of care and attention, a UCS set is not meant to be trivially disassembled. The disassembly principle is for sets designed for KFOLs: the idea of a $700 “parts pack” in the era of Bricklink is absurd.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Jackthenipper said:
" @LegoDavid said:
"Remember that time when all the LEGO sets showed alternate models on the back of the box and had the slogan "Just Imagine..."? Those times are long gone. Welcome to the new age of AFOL collectors who do nothing but build the set once and leave it on display to gather dust for the rest of eternity.

Really sad to see what the company has ended up becoming. And I can imagine it will only get worse as they continue to expand into the "adult" market. "


I’m not so sure, I tend to modify most if not all of my sets in some way and I am sure I have plenty of company.
"


AFOLs now have a massively wider range of products available from TLG, so sure, there will be lots of sets out there which are built once like Airfix. Equally there are lots of sets (more than ever before) specifically designed and marketed to be built and re-built repeatedly, even endlessly, plus a great selection of freestyle sets in the excellent value Classic theme. The LEGO magazines are crammed with photos of kids' creations very much in line with Just Imagine and Rebuild The World outlooks.

My seven year old frequently goes 'Time Cruisers' or 'Freestyle' on some of our posh, big sets. The President Business in me has to be suppressed :)

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I dunno, always feels to me that the sort of people who buy the big, expensive UCS Star Wars sets are exactly the sort of people who leave them intact as display forever. They start using techniques like this in your average set I'll be right there with you outraging over a rebuildable toy being unrebuildable...but with something like this it just feels like mountains are being made out of molehills

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

I wonder how long before adult-focused LEGO sets come with a tube of glue in the box, like some jigsaws do now.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Interesting. It's hard to know whether this is deliberate or not. Having tried to disassemble both 75256 and 7784 recently, recent sets are markedly more difficult to even know how to disassemble. There's complex layers of technic and SNOT used to lock bricks together in a way that's less like a building toy and more like a puzzle if you want to take it apart.

I understand that robustness for play is important, but it really feels to me like something has been lost if it's hard to take your Lego apart to build something new with it.

I'm not going to cry foul and wax hysterical about being 'slapped in the face'. I have absolutely no problem with people who want to buy Lego for display only. I just hope that they still want kids to take their sets apart.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

I managed to assemble this incorrectly: instead of the light grey part I assembled it to the dark grey part - went into trouble while trying to disassemble it, but my girlfriend help with her fingernails, which worked pretty ease to get the brown 4l axle out again!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Thunbear said:
"Weird this wasn't brought up in the review."
That’s harsh. Design errors (if indeed that is what this is) are rare among LEGO sets and not something that Brickset’s reviewers are looking for especially when the mistake has to do with a set’s disassembly.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Brickalili said:
"I dunno, always feels to me that the sort of people who buy the big, expensive UCS Star Wars sets are exactly the sort of people who leave them intact as display forever. They start using techniques like this in your average set I'll be right there with you outraging over a rebuildable toy being unrebuildable...but with something like this it just feels like mountains are being made out of molehills"
The AT AT in particular brings out my inner child - I’d be tweaking it and messing about with the interior in particular if I had one…

Gravatar
By in Denmark,

This headline seems created to create clickbait. Hoping it will get picked up by other sites and pushed into the wider info-sphere? It's only a matter of time before I'm being told "LEGO makes sets that can't be taken apart now, that's why I don't buy it". It's almost irresponsible to take a single $700 dollar adult set and extrapolate it into saying sets for 7 year olds will in future be made so kids can't take them apart and play with them the way they are designed to be played with - as a building toy.

This has made people comment above 'sad to see what this company has become' - Well how about 'it's sad to see what this website has become'.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

For the second one, they used a similar technique in the UCS Gunship to attach the cockpit assembly to the main body (page 249) and I took it apart yesterday without any issue.
Although now that I look at it again, I suppose I could have removed the plates on the other side and pushed it out through there but I just did what Huw suggested here by shaking it loose while holding the whole thing on the side and it worked easily enough.

But that first one is scary. I hope they will address it promptly, especially if there are easy alternatives.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

@LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

Here in the netherlands we have a store where you can hire Lego sets. If you are the second person who orders this set, you would be quite dissapointed.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

On the Lego Christmas gifts page: "Browse Christmas gifts to rebuild" first suggestion is 75313 AT-AT!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Nabii said:
"This headline seems created to create clickbait. Hoping it will get picked up by other sites and pushed into the wider info-sphere? It's only a matter of time before I'm being told "LEGO makes sets that can't be taken apart now, that's why I don't buy it". It's almost irresponsible to take a single $700 dollar adult set and extrapolate it into saying sets for 7 year olds will in future be made so kids can't take them apart and play with them the way they are designed to be played with - as a building toy.

This has made people comment above 'sad to see what this company has become' - Well how about 'it's sad to see what this website has become'. "

That’s unfair. Brickset is almost always generous in its reviews and measured in its headlines. If on this occasion the piece seems sensantionalistic, that’s a reflection of the level of concern, not wanton attention grabbing.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Nabii said:
"This headline seems created to create clickbait. Hoping it will get picked up by other sites and pushed into the wider info-sphere? It's only a matter of time before I'm being told "LEGO makes sets that can't be taken apart now, that's why I don't buy it". It's almost irresponsible to take a single $700 dollar adult set and extrapolate it into saying sets for 7 year olds will in future be made so kids can't take them apart and play with them the way they are designed to be played with - as a building toy.

This has made people comment above 'sad to see what this company has become' - Well how about 'it's sad to see what this website has become'. "


Thank you for your input, Mark. I agree that the headline is deliberately click-batey, but it appears to be true, and nowhere did I do any extrapolation. It's an isolated case and perhaps given the set is an 18+ display model it's excusable.

Perhaps you could ask your colleagues to explain why this particular solution was felt to be necessary?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I don't own but is one pin enough to hold the frame and stop it twisting? I would have used 2 or 3 black pins to give it more strength as well as stopping it twisting.

Thank you for uploading YouTube video at 75313 as I like the way the head can be turned at a distance and I now understand what the adjustment of the knee angle is all about.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

This is very interesting. We’ve seen a profusion of 18+ sets this year and I had reflected before that really large, complex sets must be a lot harder to design than simple sets. From my own building of MOCs it seems that as the model gets larger the design becomes exponentially more complex, with the different parts of the design influencing each other and changes to one bit affecting the design of another bit.

LEGO also have to deal with their safety and quality standards and extra factors like making instructions. The latter must be a massive process for a set like this with thousands of steps. If then a problem is discovered with the design and it has to be changed the knock-on effects to the instructions could be massive.

So perhaps it’s no surprise that some corners have been cut like this.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I have heard that the pins used to hold the body to the leg assembly can be removed with a piece of painters tape, so you wouldn’t have to turn it sideways and shake. Though I would love to see a video of you trying that just for fun. ;)

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@Huw said:
" I agree that the headline is deliberately click-batey, but it appears to be true, and nowhere did I do any extrapolation."

There is no indication whatsoever that this is anything but mistake or oversight. You make it sound like it was deliberate design intention.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

I'm not sure why some users here appear to be shaming the type of LEGO customers that are not breaking apart their sets to rebuild it. Breaking sets apart to rebuild them later on or build something else with the pieces is totally optional. If people never ever break a model down after it's left its box, for whatever reason, that is perfectly fine. Some want to be creative with LEGO bricks, others just want to build the model they're buying and look at it on a shelf. All good. You can't blame a company's mistake on the growing demographic of their customers.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Honestly, if I was in the market for such a set, I would almost certainly never take it apart. I don't mind that they did this. And if I sell it down the line, I don't really imagine that the buyer would take their shirt off because they couldn't disassemble this step.

The above is said in consideration that this is a poseable model of an AT-AT, and not for kids. I don't foresee any smaller and less complex set having this issue. Anyway, a mistake on a 6,000+ piece set is forgivable in my mind.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"On the Lego Christmas gifts page: "Browse Christmas gifts to rebuild" first suggestion is 75313 AT-AT!"

Perhaps the implication is you buy multiples :D

Gravatar
By in Poland,

This isnt new. There are few sets from 2000+ era that also had this problem.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Perhaps some designer was just trying to get the parts count up. Using 5 parts where 1 will do x 4 legs. But this instance seems a bit excessive, and a pain for those of us who take sets apart. Plenty of instances out there where a model will use multiple smaller bricks instead of 1 large one - presumably under the guise that it gives the user more options to build something else out of them later. That doesn't really apply in this case.

I understand the folks who like to build these and then let them sit for the rest of their lives, but that's not me. No Lego model in my collection will stay together indefinitely. That's not how I see or use them. A room full of large Lego models taking up space and collecting dust is a nightmare in my mind. I may keep the parts together for convenience for if/when I decide to build the model again in the future, but no set of mine is off limits to donate parts for another build - even if I have to keep track of what I'm taking from where. To each their own.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I know this is anecdotal but I am positive that this is not the first time this has happened. I have at least two similar pieces involving a Technic frame where the LEGO pieces cannot be disassembled that came from official sets. It is just a problem with the Technic frames themselves unfortunately.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Rob42 said:
" @Huw said:
" I agree that the headline is deliberately click-batey, but it appears to be true, and nowhere did I do any extrapolation."

There is no indication whatsoever that this is anything but mistake or oversight. You make it sound like it was deliberate design intention."


There's no indication either way. Huw hasn't said it was deliberate, just that it's been designed that way, which is true. Any other inference is your own.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,



Since I was the one noticing this issue straight from looking at the digital instructions, I e-mailed Lego. They said: try a brick seperator. I had to e-mail them again that it was a bug tougher than this. My AT-AT still has to be shipped but at least now I am prepaired.

Also, I built the subassembly with my spare parts and was able to take it apart by bending the ABS. I could use my fingernail to get under the stop of the axle. Still not the right way to go.

Also, I am waiting for TLG to send me my AT-AT for free for pointing this out to them. :p You are never too young to believe in miracles.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

At step 714 is anything stopping a pair of 7M axles meeting in the middle which are then captured by the side plates to hold them in place ? They should be easy to remove after taking off the under body detail section and side plates.

Gravatar
By in Turkey,

Came cause of the clickbait title :P

Gravatar
By in United States,

@amok said:
"Came cause of the clickbait title :P"

I'm not even certain it's a clickbait title. If only because on my phone I can read the first two paragraphs and see the problem in the embedded image without even having to click on the article.

The basics of the issue are described without me even having to click on anything, which I greatly appreciate.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Nabii said:
"This headline seems created to create clickbait. Hoping it will get picked up by other sites and pushed into the wider info-sphere? It's only a matter of time before I'm being told "LEGO makes sets that can't be taken apart now, that's why I don't buy it". It's almost irresponsible to take a single $700 dollar adult set and extrapolate it into saying sets for 7 year olds will in future be made so kids can't take them apart and play with them the way they are designed to be played with - as a building toy.

This has made people comment above 'sad to see what this company has become' - Well how about 'it's sad to see what this website has become'. "


I suppose we all read and interpret online text in different ways from our own unique positions, but I think the comments have been pretty balanced and not at all OTT, except maybe some all-caps, and references to pitchforks and mountains/molehills (all in overreaction to things which have not been said by those critical of this design IMO).

Sure, one user wrote 'Sad to see what this company is becoming', but that's one person, not people, and not Brickset.

Most of us have huge respect for TLG's designers such as yourself, and it's likely none of us know the pressures, limitations and deadlines which can lead to mistakes or unpopular choices. The fact is we (commenters) don't know if it was deliberate or an oversight, but either of those is a valid concern to many AFOLs.

We're all just talking 'what if' scenarios which is the nature of emerging news.

Your work on 76178 Daily Bugle is fantastic by the way; I hope to build it with my son one day :)

Gravatar
By in Brazil,

Since last year I got some of the first huge sets of my collection (before 2020, the only one was 10211): I got 71741, 76193, 42115, 80010, 71721, 10295, 80012, 75243... and a few others too.

I like taking sets apart and rebuilding them some time after the purchase. I do this ever since I was a kid. It gives a refresh to the set and I think it helps relieving the stress on the parts after a long time built. However, I admit I never had the will and courage to take apart any of these new sets I got, even though I would love to rebuild 71741 and 76193, for example. They take so much time to build AND to unbuild. It can be very tiresome.... HOWEVER, I still want to unbuild and rebuild them someday.

So, it is very disappointing to see Lego going to the permanent builds. We're aware they're enormous sets minded as display pieces, but they're still Lego! We need to be able to completely unbuild them if we want. I really hope this is an isolated issue and that it doesn't return to any other sets in the future.

Gravatar
By in United States,

That's it! I'm done with LEGO!! This breaks from their core tenet.

Ok, just kidding. But it is very interesting.

Gravatar
By in Denmark,

I've noticed this in an older set I had to take apart recently. I almost broke the darned thing!

I can't remember which set it was, it was a donation and I was just taking everything apart for later use... the point, anyway, is that there's really nothing new in this, sometimes it happens.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I’m not sure I accept this as any kind of a problem. Anyone who buys this set is unlikely ever to dismantle it and reuse the parts. 90% of the copies will be built once and displayed, left to gather a decade of dust before the owner realises they no longer have the love for it they once did back in 2021. Disassembling the set for sale in 2031 doesn’t need to involve taking it apart completely. And anyone forking out the £1000s needed at that time to buy such a built-once-and-extremely-dusty copy won’t be interested in taking it apart - just putting it back together so it can be displayed on their shelf for a further decade before the cycle repeats. For how long this is sustained depends on whether LEGO re-release the model concept like they have with the Falcon, and whether clone brands have created a cut price yet identical in appearance copy.
I completely agree that it’s bad news to design a set which cannot be dismantled without breaking it. But in this case I doubt it actually hurts anyone.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Huw said:
" Thank you for your input, Mark. I agree that the headline is deliberately click-batey, but it appears to be true, and nowhere did I do any extrapolation."

Well, the article is about a single set. The headline uses the word "sets." This is an extrapolation. After all, the headline implies that there are multiple sets being designed this way.

"The new LEGO AT-AT set can't be taken apart" has a very different implication than "LEGO is now designing sets that can't be taken apart."

Gravatar
By in United States,

This is nothing new. Bionicle Toa Mata, Toa Nuva, and Toa sets all had eyes that were designed to “permanently” attach to the heads (in practice, this didn’t work as intended). There are some modern Technic steering components that likewise are designed to permanently connect. And I can’t recall any specific sets, but similar one-time build components like these have been used before to ensure that the load-bearing joints don’t accidentally separate and cause a heavy model to land on a small child. Make no mistake, this subsection of the AT-AT was designed this way on purpose, certainly to prevent an accidental leg collapse, and probably to make it difficult to screw up construction of these components in the first place.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"I'd looked at the first one when it came up in comments recently. I figured at least 2 ways to avoid the problem while keeping the pin connector on the end. The easiest is just to leave out the 2L green connector.
The second problem looks to stem from trying to keep the construction symmetric. For that sort of thing, Technic is usually assymetric (different parts on each side) and built one side to the other. This looks like a System builder solution to a Technic problem. "


You're absolutely right, the green connector is completely superfluous - it does literally nothing! Such an odd mistake to make

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Brikkyy13 said:
"I’m absolutely shocked that when this was posted in other communities such as Reddit and Facebook it was met with apathy and even dismissal. The reddit post I saw was heavily downvoted, comments saying nothing was wrong and the OP was even accused of photoshopping it. What has the lego community come to?"

My only issue with this comment is calling Reddit 'the Lego community,' given that the majority of their userbase, even in r/lego, is about as far as you can get from Afols.

Gravatar
By in United States,

On one hand, this is a fair argument to raise with the company. I don't see it as a black eye for Lego like some other comments. At worst, it's a QA issue that slipped by the entire team on one set out of hundreds produced this year.

On the other hand, doesn't everyone have a steak knife on their Lego workbench to help separate pieces?!? ;-) I use one all the time to remove tiles from studded pieces.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

In response to @nabii

I think this is unfair. The comments on Brickset have been mostly fair, and as consumers we have a right to express our concern over something that is clearly dear to all our hearts. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be talking about it now, would we?
Whether this is a design intention or an oversight it raises questions on either future intent or quality control and review processes. No one should be demanding refunds for their product or threatening boycotts or abusing our fellow Lego fans or creators, but we have a right to express our concerns to the company in a constructive way, especially if one can only find out about issues like this in the process of building a £700 set or learning from the experience of those that do. That's why independent news sources for our beloved bricks are needed, so we, as both fans and paying customers, have good awareness of what is going on.

Not all of us are so quick thinking to recognise a potential issue and correct it mid-build.

Hopefully the TLG will recognise the broad community has no desire to name and shame - we just care. A lot :)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Wow the gatekeeping and jumping to conclusions (from both sides) here is astounding.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

So many people calling "LEGO, how dare you doing that!?" but how many of you break your UCS sets into pieces or rebuild into something else?

Gravatar
By in United States,

If I purchased this set sometime in the future as a used set from someone who built it before and left the assembly with the pins still there, but everything else that was easy to disassemble was disassembled, I would not be disappointed in the very least ;)

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

Go get a set of standards!
If I'm paying 700 bucks for a product like this, it better be up there quality wise. Lego is not your friend, Lego is a Company with it's only goal being "generating revenue". So it better work hard to get my money (currently they are doing a pretty bad job). As a consumer, you shouldn't kiss the feet of corporations, it should be the other way around.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Besides the problem at hand with the walker, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who hates the new 2M black Technic pins with friction. The old mold is so much better, bring it back ASAP!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@CCC said:
"There are already some people commenting that they would like to be able to take the set apart and rebuilt it. LEGO sets should be able to built more than once. If someone buys the set second hand in 2031, why should they not get the pleasure of actually building the set? I've purchased second hand sets in the past to build them rather than display them. Some people enjoy building LEGO sets, not just displaying them. I don't see the building process as a chore, it is the part I enjoy most. Removing the ability to take them apart removes the ability to build them a second (or more) time."

To be fair, it's just the four small sub-assemblies that are impossible to take apart. It doesn't prevent one from taking the rest of it apart. It's not optimal, but it's also not a huge part of the build. In my mind, it's more akin to stickers already being applied. I don't get the full building experience with a secondhand set that already has stickers put together, but it's not going to detract hugely from the experience (unless the stickers are applied poorly).

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Duq said:
"Two examples come to mind.
In 8448 on page 183 you put a 1x5 half beam on a 1x5 Technic plate. I've never been able to get those apart without non-Lego tools.
Y-wing 75249 page 50, a tan 2x2 plate with 2 studs goes onto a white hull piece/ inverted curved slope. It's possible to remove but not easy; no groove to get a brick separator under, can't put the brick separator on the studs and no hole underneath to push it up."


Really? Never noticed that with 75249.... Oh yeah, you're right.... [wish I'd just taken your word for it... Duh!]

Gravatar
By in Italy,

@legoverslinder said:
"Here in the netherlands we have a store where you can hire Lego sets. If you are the second person who orders this set, you would be quite dissapointed."
wait, what's that? I never heard of "hiring" lego sets. I would like to know more about this.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Weird, just really weird.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

So the unofficial line is “This is clickbait”. Hopefully there will be a bit more of a considered response since this seems to be a result of over-engineering rather than a necessary design assembly- perhaps it would be more newsworthy if it was clearly a design decision to create a single use assembly due to lack of alternatives , but the concerning issue is the QA seems to have slipped for a flagship set , or worse the UCS purchasing demographic are framed as being not concerned about rebuilding sets.

I think we’re also a bit more aware of potential impossible builds after the articles earlier this year (?). Perhaps it should be part of the Designers induction!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@TeaWeevil said:
" @Huw said:
" Thank you for your input, Mark. I agree that the headline is deliberately click-batey, but it appears to be true, and nowhere did I do any extrapolation."

Well, the article is about a single set. The headline uses the word "sets." This is an extrapolation. After all, the headline implies that there are multiple sets being designed this way.

"The new LEGO AT-AT set can't be taken apart" has a very different implication than "LEGO is now designing sets that can't be taken apart.""


I have to agree with this comment, and it might just be a complete oversight during QC. The article title does seem to allude to a wider and deliberate move by TLG, when I don’t know if that’s the case at all. Granted we’re not here to argue about a topic title, but I do think it’s misleading.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I have 75192 the UCS Millennium Falcon and I tore it down last year, as I didn't have the space for it to display currently. As I got to the end of deconstructing it, I found that I had to get pliers in order to dismantle it fully. There were definitely a few spots where I simply couldn't grasp or get to the parts with fingers or brick separators to un-build it.

It wasn't the end of the world for me. I wasn't "up in arms" or furious of what the LEGO group "had done to me or my building experience." Some of you really, really get worked up over nothing. I don't know what you do in your normal lives/jobs, but things like this are completely insignificant. It's still just a toy after all.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

"I have a bad feeling about this".... As has been stated the fundamental idea of Lego is creativity i.e. the ability to build what you want from the parts of any set you have.
In days gone by STAMP also limited use of some parts but thankfully Lego phased that out - sometimes the aesthetic is a little off but you can always use each piece for whatever you want.
I would suspect and hope that it's simple human error (a bit of poor QC in such a prestigious and expensive set but we are all human) as otherwise it's a slippery slope. How may parts of a set would they consider could be 'permanent construction'; they might as well put a tube of glue in each set?
Also I'm sure there must be many AFOL who have very limited space as I do. As a result I only display two or three sets and I change them regularly. If I could afford it 75313 would not remain on display for a long time and I would expect to be able to dismantle it completely.

Gravatar
By in Norway,

First world problem. Everyone has a bunch of 4l axles laying around if you have to dismantle it in the first place. The damage on the axle is not even visible if you have do it. Easy peazy.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I agree that this is the type of thing I would expect to see on a set of instructions from Rebrickable or similar (where some of the techniques used are sometimes less than well thought through) but you can accept it there an learn to adapt as part of the creative process of what is basically sharing a design. With regards to not using Lego 'as intended', I recall a friend in about 1983 who kept all his sets assembled in a playroom with a thick layer of dust over everything who got outraged if I attempted to start to tamper with anything; my new sets were dismantled after a week or so of being built up! Nowadays, my Modulars and street set up remain assembled but constantly evolving, being extended, altered, tweaked (but not dusted that often...)

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Several people are claiming display sets won't get taken apart anyway. Just to add my view: All my sets get disassembled after some time, as I need to make space for new builds. I don't think anything has lasted much more than year on display. Also, taking sets apart and sorting the elements is part of the fun!

So, for me, not being able to fully disassemble a set would be a disappointment.

Gravatar
By in United States,

But in all seriousness, this should be a no-go. Imagine if you stuck some 2x4s together but could never remove them without damaging some bricks. That’s not fun, and it makes said bricks less valuable to me overall.

This is one showcase where bigger doesn’t mean better. The smaller AT-ATs don’t have this problem. If the set wasn’t so massive, these drastic measures might not ever be necessary.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Why the green connector, though? Without it, it would be possible (but not easy, I agree) to take the assembly apart using your fingers or rubber plyers (I already use those often anyway).

I got this set (still waiting for delivery!), and I'm wondering if I will build it with the connector or not. I probably will, since if I ever decide to take this set apart, I don't think I will mind not being able to take apart those four small sub-assemblies.

To me, it's a small annoyance, not a huge deal. I do think some people see too much into this.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already.

Marketing obviously has figured out that the fundamental LEGO principle of getting creative with the bricks you already have, keeps people from buying more. How ironic.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Frank_Brickowski said:
"Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already."

I don’t know if that’s really the reason for colored pieces being inside of sets. I figured it was A) cost saving and part availability and B) to make it a little easier to build the sometimes intricate inner workings and breaks up the grey monotony that many of these sets have. After all, when you look at big MOC’s people make, the interior you don’t see is often this same way, a rainbow of colors.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

I am glad to see the community call out issues like this, and TLG's response will be interesting.

I want to believe that this is just an over-engineered mistake, and not deliberate in any way.

The one thing I am surprised about is the number of people who saying that they NEVER disassemble large sets like this. Maybe I'm in the minority but these very large sets don't have a long "shelf life" in our house. The they get disassembled, inventoried and re-sold to make room for more. Also, having moved once with partially disassembled sets and loosing parts, I would disassembled and inventory sets if I move again.

@fakespacesquid said:
"My only issue with this comment is calling Reddit 'the Lego community,' given that the majority of their userbase, even in r/lego, is about as far as you can get from Afols. "

Yup, slightly off topic, but reddit is a shadow of what it once was, r/Lego and the site in general. It reached a critical mass of users and any sense of community collapsed. Some smaller subs are still okay, but large "mainstream" subs are a mess.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@monkyby87 said:
" @Frank_Brickowski said:
"Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already."

I don’t know if that’s really the reason for colored pieces being inside of sets. I figured it was A) cost saving and part availability and B) to make it a little easier to build the sometimes intricate inner workings and breaks up the grey monotony that many of these sets have. After all, when you look at big MOC’s people make, the interior you don’t see is often this same way, a rainbow of colors. "


Well, the "official" reason for all the colored pieces is another one, of course. It's just not a very plausible one. No other manufacturer does this and no customer has any problems assembling without the rainbow inside.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I think this situation calls for more specialized human tools for Technic, similar to the brick separator. I'm sure Lego could make something that would allow disassembly for these scenarios.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@lordofdragonss said:
"This isnt new. There are few sets from 2000+ era that also had this problem.
"


But then how can I make my "everything sucks now and was great before, it's definitely not just that I'm sad about getting older" type comments? :)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Boy, this is disappointing. I eventually take apart all my sets and categorize the parts into my bins for future use on MOCs, and to not be able to take apart even a single pair of elements is very irritating. My AT-AT arrives on Friday, and I’ll be looking for alternate solutions to these builds.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@commandervideo said:
"Boy, this is disappointing. I eventually take apart all my sets and categorize the parts into my bins for future use on MOCs, and to not be able to take apart even a single pair of elements is very irritating. My AT-AT arrives on Friday, and I’ll be looking for alternate solutions to these builds. "
You can take it apart, it just won’t be as easy or “proper” as it should be. It’s not like it’s glued together or anything.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Given the article is about one set, I have changed the title to counter the accusations of generalisation.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@gabri_ves said:
" @legoverslinder said:
"Here in the netherlands we have a store where you can hire Lego sets. If you are the second person who orders this set, you would be quite dissapointed."
wait, what's that? I never heard of "hiring" lego sets. I would like to know more about this."


Same! I've contemplated before on the whether the concept could exist, but was never able to figure out how it would work in practice. I'd be fascinated to learn about a store that manages to offer such a service effectively :D

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Frank_Brickowski said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @Frank_Brickowski said:
"Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already."

I don’t know if that’s really the reason for colored pieces being inside of sets. I figured it was A) cost saving and part availability and B) to make it a little easier to build the sometimes intricate inner workings and breaks up the grey monotony that many of these sets have. After all, when you look at big MOC’s people make, the interior you don’t see is often this same way, a rainbow of colors. "


Well, the "official" reason for all the colored pieces is another one, of course. It's just not a very plausible one. No other manufacturer does this and no customer has any problems assembling without the rainbow inside."


Citing other manufacturers isn’t a great argument, as they don’t have the breadth or selection of pieces as Lego does, and don’t have the flexibility. As for other customers, I can’t speak to that, but it’s a big assumption to say nobody else has trouble. Colored pieces doesn’t hurt, and I do think it makes building a little more interesting than just staring at thousands of grey pieces over and over.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I realize I am one of those fans that lets builds sit on shelves, so with this behemoth, why would I ever want to take it apart? (I won't be buying it due to cost anyway)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Good read! I do appreciate the insight into that step (Now gives me a "heads up" when building the monster AT-AT in a few days).

I would agree the title of this article is quite misleading, as it does imply this is a issue that is happening more and more and will continue. Rather than keeping it on point to the one set we are talking about here, in context of the AT-AT build. O well, guess that is what is happening with any news these days - Go big or Go home. @Huw

It seem like the community has given it a bit more scrutiny then looking at the bigger picture of what this Lego set accomplishes and what it is. The sheer size and complexity of keeping it sturdy is something that is amazing, thus to have 2 parts that are not "ideal" for taking apart, and the disappointment coming from it seems a bit pretentious. With a set this size, is there really that many people who will be taking this apart COMPLETELY and then re-building it? Is that number high enough to gain this much disappointment and negativity towards TLG? Error (if we can call it this) happens and sometimes in order to accomplish a bigger picture not everything can be ideal.

It does perplex me why, but end the end the build will be very awesome and enjoyable and TLG did a fantastic job at bringing us a iconic vehicle to add to the collection.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

It's not the end of the world, but it obviously is not how a Lego set should be. I mean, they make an effort not to put stickers over multiple parts, despite the sometimes terrible results of that. This to me is one step beyond that.

However, reading some of the comments here make me wonder how far Lego could take this. Would the use of glue be absolutely taboo? I get the feeling quite a few people here wouldn't mind at all...

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Frank_Brickowski said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @Frank_Brickowski said:
"Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already."

I don’t know if that’s really the reason for colored pieces being inside of sets. I figured it was A) cost saving and part availability and B) to make it a little easier to build the sometimes intricate inner workings and breaks up the grey monotony that many of these sets have. After all, when you look at big MOC’s people make, the interior you don’t see is often this same way, a rainbow of colors. "


Well, the "official" reason for all the colored pieces is another one, of course. It's just not a very plausible one. No other manufacturer does this and no customer has any problems assembling without the rainbow inside."


It must be so depressing to see a colored piece and instantly lose any ability to rebuild with it. I seriously can't relate to this argument at all. Why would you want the insides to be monochrome? Are you really suggesting that people only build alternate models with strictly pieces from one set? And it's even more goofy to suggest that this is evil corporation activities to try and get you to buy more. If anything, it's CLEARLY evil corporation activities to lessen the number of different elements active in different colors. What a weird, weird thing to try and attribute to greedy bad guys.

@CCC said:
" @TeaWeevil said:"
To be fair, it's just the four small sub-assemblies that are impossible to take apart. It doesn't prevent one from taking the rest of it apart. It's not optimal, but it's also not a huge part of the build. In my mind, it's more akin to stickers already being applied. I don't get the full building experience with a secondhand set that already has stickers put together, but it's not going to detract hugely from the experience (unless the stickers are applied poorly)."


It is still part of the build though, no matter how small. It might not stop the rest being deconstructed, but the builder knows that they will have never have built the whole thing themselves.

Due to the design, this set will probably now be famous for being the one that cannot be taken apart.
"


(It probably won't)

Gravatar
By in United States,

I am one of the people who do buy UCS sets and a wide range of both technical and regular sets. And I will want to dismantle this set completely and kit it out. I generally leave my larger sets on display for maybe a year, if not less and the make my own MOCs. I have been since I was a kid.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@monkyby87 said:
" @Frank_Brickowski said:
" @monkyby87 said:
" @Frank_Brickowski said:
"Maybe this is just the next step in the strategy of getting people to buy a set, build it once and never think about disassembling it, keeping people away from building their own models, so they go on to buy the next set sooner than before. Throwing all the colored pieces into the inside of models, so you cannot use all these parts to really build anything new, has worked well already."

I don’t know if that’s really the reason for colored pieces being inside of sets. I figured it was A) cost saving and part availability and B) to make it a little easier to build the sometimes intricate inner workings and breaks up the grey monotony that many of these sets have. After all, when you look at big MOC’s people make, the interior you don’t see is often this same way, a rainbow of colors. "


Well, the "official" reason for all the colored pieces is another one, of course. It's just not a very plausible one. No other manufacturer does this and no customer has any problems assembling without the rainbow inside."


Citing other manufacturers isn’t a great argument, as they don’t have the breadth or selection of pieces as Lego does. "


You're right: COBI has WAY MORE different pieces than LEGO. Though they never build any rainbow into their models and still no one complains.

And colored pieces inside make the build "more interesting"?... I guess some people can rationalize anything to death if they really need to for their image of LEGO to keep working.

Gravatar
By in United States,

The example with the No2 angle connector is more easily disassembled than the hip joint on the AT-AT. 2L axles (modern ones, at least) have notched ends, and if you have enough clearance around the tip, you can slide a hook of some sort in to extract them with. Unfortunately, if you 2L both ends, you’ll need to extract both axles to get the angle connector back out. It’s not easy in a pin hole (slotted axle holes provide an amazing amount of clearance to reach a small metal tool in), but it’s easier than trying to do the same to a smooth axle through the slot on a pin joiner.

@Brikkyy13:
If you build the hip joint correctly, it’s locked together so the turntable can’t pop loose if (when) someone installs it upside-down. If you screw up, short of forgetting to install the turntable _before_ you add the “cotter pin”, you should be able to disassemble it and fix your mistake.

@DoonsterBuildsLego:
If it matters to people, swap the pin connector for _THREE_ half-bushes. Slide them to the frame during assembly to keep the cotter pin from accidentally coming loose. Slide them towards the center of the frame and back out to (hopefully) pull the flanged axle out 1/2 stud, giving you something to grab onto to pull it the rest of the way free. From there, disassembly should be easy.

@JayCal:
Almost this exact same “cotter pin” design has been used at least once before. They know exactly what it does, and did it intentionally. But yes, the point of this is to make sure the turntable can’t detach from the frame if the frame is suspended from it rather than resting on it.

@davejbur:
You’re an engineer? How would you go about designing a lawyer-proof hip joint on a monstrous AT-AT that’s already top-heavy, even with all four legs firmly attached to the body? Keep in mind that if you post designer videos and set notes that identify you as the set designer, your name may be on the lawsuit if some toddler gets killed or injured when it collapses due to an accidental hip separation.

@R0Sch:
Tiles are thinner than plates, and have no studs to intersect the studs on the plate. It’s acceptable to wedge them between studs, but plates between studs is forbidden.

@MainBricker:
Leave the pin joiner out, and any injuries due to leg collapse are legally your fault.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

@lost_scotsman said:
" @DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"I'd looked at the first one when it came up in comments recently. I figured at least 2 ways to avoid the problem while keeping the pin connector on the end. The easiest is just to leave out the 2L green connector.
The second problem looks to stem from trying to keep the construction symmetric. For that sort of thing, Technic is usually assymetric (different parts on each side) and built one side to the other. This looks like a System builder solution to a Technic problem. "


You're absolutely right, the green connector is completely superfluous - it does literally nothing! Such an odd mistake to make
"


That's not true. Without it, you can push the orange and the grey connectors back into the frame. Still, as already pointed out, it's not clear to me why there isn't simply a black pin instead of the orange pin. It might be slightly sturdier, or it might provide counter-pressure for assemblies that get added to the side later. Still, there are other ways of achieving the same that can be taken apart.

I have dissassembled assemblies like this by twisting the frame and/or jiggling the middle bits until you get a gap between the cap of the axle-pin-with-stop and te hole it is in, and then nails or a blade of some sort can be used to pull it out.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Some technic pin pieces cannot be removed after being inserted without damage in sets that I have & I don't own any technic sets. I just figured that was how technic pins work.
Also it is almost impossible to get 1x1 plates in clear colors apart once they are connected. So not all pieces can be separated in my experience.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ComfySofa said:
" @Shropshire said:
"Rebuild the world, as long as it's not Hoth."

Or Alderaan."


Ouch. Too soon.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

@Huw said:
"Given the article is about one set, I have changed the title to counter the accusations of generalisation."

I hope this does not become a general guideline; about the least catchy title ever ;-)

@ThatBionicleGuy said:
" @gabri_ves said:
wait, what's that? I never heard of "hiring" lego sets. I would like to know more about this.

Same!"


We also have a few in Belgium; just search the web for "rent LEGO" or something like that (not going to advertise the sites here). The concept is quite simple: you can rent a set for a certain amount of time, the prices vary depending on how long you want to keep the set, similar to renting (construction) tools. I haven't tried it myself and it sounds like a nightmare to run a business like that (constantly counting pieces and buying replacements if they get lost or break)

Gravatar
By in France,

it's another Wall-E moment. what a bunch of wallies. I'm sure there will be a fix though. It's not the end of the world though....

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Huw said:
"Given the article is about one set, I have changed the title to counter the accusations of generalisation."

The title is perfect now @Huw, I think it was the right thing to change it. I don’t want you to feel we were bullying you or anything. As always, you, the other contributors, and this site overall are the pinnacle of all things Lego, and this hobby and community wouldn’t be nearly as robust or great without. Keep up the good work, it’s truly incredible.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

I don't see a problem with that, as these "rules" are not really rules. I mean, you can't sue Lego for that. Having said that, I think they should add a note about this being permanent connection during these steps in the booklet, just to not make users think they did something wrong when/if trying to take apart. I'm sure we'll see more and more of these as the race to the "biggest Lego set ever" is only getting started.

Gravatar
By in Switzerland,

I remember I had some troubles to dismantle my 75256.
The combination of a 2l red axle on step 68 and a 5l yellow axle on step 70.
I spent more than one hour to try to understand what I did wrong.

Gravatar
By in New Zealand,

@Thunbear said:
"Weird this wasn't brought up in the review."

Or anyone else's reviews for that matter. Brothers-Brick did mention the brown axles that connect the body to the chassis, but that one doesn't concern me as they can be pulled out with mild adhesive like sticky putty or by tilting the model on it's side, it's the upper leg joints which can't be taken apart without damage that I find unacceptable for an official set - and no reviews mentioned that one.

@MCLegoBoy said:
"Steps 280 and 281 do something similar: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/320319355525267458/914133521235333170/unknown.png
I don't know if you can jam a bar into the pin since I don't own that part, but I was curious if such a connection like steps 130 and 131 were present anywhere else, and sadly, they were."


That one looks bad but actually isn't. You can put a lightsaber blade or similar bar into the grey pin to pull it out. While my AT-AT hasn't arrived yet, I have tested this with the pins on my Vader's Meditation Chamber.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I like the new title better but never felt that @Huw was intentionally trying to muddy the waters. And I find this a fascinating question and imagine most of us are simply curious as to whether this design was intentional or simply an oversight, irrespective of any silly hyperbole in an online comments section. That being said, I hope Mark uses his position and status in the community to help move the discussion forward and not simply drive by criticize our beloved LEGO clubhouse here.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

@eiffel006 said:
"Why the green connector, though? Without it, it would be possible (but not easy, I agree) to take the assembly apart using your fingers or rubber plyers (I already use those often anyway). "

Looking at the design some more, I realized the green connector is essential to avoid the orange pin to disengage. A black pin on top could have worked, but designers surely have good reasons to have done what they did. Hopefully.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@rslotb said:
" @lost_scotsman said:
" @DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"I'd looked at the first one when it came up in comments recently. I figured at least 2 ways to avoid the problem while keeping the pin connector on the end. The easiest is just to leave out the 2L green connector.
The second problem looks to stem from trying to keep the construction symmetric. For that sort of thing, Technic is usually assymetric (different parts on each side) and built one side to the other. This looks like a System builder solution to a Technic problem. "


You're absolutely right, the green connector is completely superfluous - it does literally nothing! Such an odd mistake to make
"


That's not true. Without it, you can push the orange and the grey connectors back into the frame. Still, as already pointed out, it's not clear to me why there isn't simply a black pin instead of the orange pin. It might be slightly sturdier, or it might provide counter-pressure for assemblies that get added to the side later. Still, there are other ways of achieving the same that can be taken apart.

I have dissassembled assemblies like this by twisting the frame and/or jiggling the middle bits until you get a gap between the cap of the axle-pin-with-stop and te hole it is in, and then nails or a blade of some sort can be used to pull it out.
"


Oh yeah.... Yup, you're right I retract my statement

Gravatar
By in United States,

@BrickRandom said:
"Several people are claiming display sets won't get taken apart anyway. Just to add my view: All my sets get disassembled after some time, as I need to make space for new builds. I don't think anything has lasted much more than year on display. Also, taking sets apart and sorting the elements is part of the fun!

So, for me, not being able to fully disassemble a set would be a disappointment."


Part of the fun? Sorting? I need to fly you to the US and sort my Lego mess out....fun indeed.

My issue is not with this, but rather as I am rebuilding sets with my children, pieces just break. Cheese slopes litterally shatter, plates actually snap in two. For some reason the plastic has become very brittle on quiet a few pieces, a small amout thankfully, but still quite annoying.

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

Some of you are really, really, no but really exaggerating in your outrage...

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Hopefully this is not deliberate. Preventing rebuilding is a serious infringement of rights: it doesn't matter if you actually want to or not, it's your freedom to choose that is being removed.

I appreciate that these massive sets are more likely to be built once and displayed forever, but this also makes me think it is a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner, and to accustom us to this pattern of behaviour in the future.

I am also wary of TLG pursuing JEKCA-type techniques of locking parts together with a mini screwdriver or other tool, it totally undermines the concept of Lego.

I do admire some building techniques which can also result in a model being harder to take apart, SNOT is an obvious example. Also, the use of 'up' and 'down' brackets with tiles or plates spread across to strengthen the structure.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I'm really a critic of this set--the size, the price point, et. al. However, I feel this was intentional. Main reason, I know there were many complaints with leg stability on older AT-ATs, and this may play a part as to why an assembly like this would be used.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

People here talking as if not being to easily remove some common technic elements from this set is equivalent to the whole thing being glued together...

It is an interesting and curious error on LEGO's part, but lets face it this won't really affect anyone.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@monkyby87 said:
" @commandervideo said:
"Boy, this is disappointing. I eventually take apart all my sets and categorize the parts into my bins for future use on MOCs, and to not be able to take apart even a single pair of elements is very irritating. My AT-AT arrives on Friday, and I’ll be looking for alternate solutions to these builds. "
You can take it apart, it just won’t be as easy or “proper” as it should be. It’s not like it’s glued together or anything.
"


True dat! I'm going to see if there's an alternate way to achieve the same end result, and if not, I'm definitely just going to build it to spec. It's just an irritation is all. I don't feel that a great injury has befallen me.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@bassplate said:
"Hopefully this is not deliberate. Preventing rebuilding is a serious infringement of rights: it doesn't matter if you actually want to or not, it's your freedom to choose that is being removed.

I appreciate that these massive sets are more likely to be built once and displayed forever, but this also makes me think it is a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner, and to accustom us to this pattern of behaviour in the future.

I am also wary of TLG pursuing JEKCA-type techniques of locking parts together with a mini screwdriver or other tool, it totally undermines the concept of Lego.

I do admire some building techniques which can also result in a model being harder to take apart, SNOT is an obvious example. Also, the use of 'up' and 'down' brackets with tiles or plates spread across to strengthen the structure."


The argument about infringement on rights, with respect to a luxury toy item, is rather comical.

I truly don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on here. I figure they may have thought it was the easiest technique to secure the model, and either realized the error and figured it wasn’t a huge deal (it isn’t IMO), or didn’t catch the error in their QC.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Time to bust out ol' reliable (*brushes teeth and doesn't clip my fingernails for a month*)

Gravatar
By in United States,

@bassplate said:
"Hopefully this is not deliberate. Preventing rebuilding is a serious infringement of rights: it doesn't matter if you actually want to or not, it's your freedom to choose that is being removed.

(...)this also makes me think it is a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner(...)"


It's also your right to, you know, not build it like that? I guess if you want to handcuff yourself to only ever following the instructions exactly, then sure it's limited. But you can also...not do that. And then no rights violated! Yay!

I feel like we're losing a lot, a *lot* of perspective here. The entire unassembleable assembly includes 11 parts, one for each leg makes 44. 44 out of 6785, one half of one percent of the set. Not a single review caught this technique initially, meaning it's only an issue that you'd find after very thorough research or after you decide to take it apart. How does that add up to "a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner?" I can't visualize that. If it came with a tube of glue, then maybe people would be aware that the build is fully over and they'd want to get the next one. But this is nowhere near as permanent and nowhere near as widespread. That just doesn't make sense. 99.994% of the set is totally fully reusable, and really you'd only need to sacrifice the axles here so that's 99.9995% of the set. Is that really all it takes for the sky to fall around here?

Gravatar
By in Canada,

@fakespacesquid said:
" @bassplate said:
"Hopefully this is not deliberate. Preventing rebuilding is a serious infringement of rights: it doesn't matter if you actually want to or not, it's your freedom to choose that is being removed.

(...)this also makes me think it is a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner(...)"


It's also your right to, you know, not build it like that? I guess if you want to handcuff yourself to only ever following the instructions exactly, then sure it's limited. But you can also...not do that. And then no rights violated! Yay!

I feel like we're losing a lot, a *lot* of perspective here. The entire unassembleable assembly includes 11 parts, one for each leg makes 44. 44 out of 6785, one half of one percent of the set. Not a single review caught this technique initially, meaning it's only an issue that you'd find after very thorough research or after you decide to take it apart. How does that add up to "a cynical tactic to make us purchase the next adult set far sooner?" I can't visualize that. If it came with a tube of glue, then maybe people would be aware that the build is fully over and they'd want to get the next one. But this is nowhere near as permanent and nowhere near as widespread. That just doesn't make sense. 99.994% of the set is totally fully reusable, and really you'd only need to sacrifice the axles here so that's 99.9995% of the set. Is that really all it takes for the sky to fall around here?"


You're correct, and while "for each his own", I think that people who cry about it spend way too much time within the Lego world. Life is still fun, no one died. There are much worse things to worry about, even within the context of Lego.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@enzommx said:
"Good read! I do appreciate the insight into that step (Now gives me a "heads up" when building the monster AT-AT in a few days).

I would agree the title of this article is quite misleading, as it does imply this is a issue that is happening more and more and will continue. Rather than keeping it on point to the one set we are talking about here, in context of the AT-AT build. O well, guess that is what is happening with any news these days - Go big or Go home. @Huw

It seem like the community has given it a bit more scrutiny then looking at the bigger picture of what this Lego set accomplishes and what it is. The sheer size and complexity of keeping it sturdy is something that is amazing, thus to have 2 parts that are not "ideal" for taking apart, and the disappointment coming from it seems a bit pretentious. With a set this size, is there really that many people who will be taking this apart COMPLETELY and then re-building it? Is that number high enough to gain this much disappointment and negativity towards TLG? Error (if we can call it this) happens and sometimes in order to accomplish a bigger picture not everything can be ideal.

It does perplex me why, but end the end the build will be very awesome and enjoyable and TLG did a fantastic job at bringing us a iconic vehicle to add to the collection."


If LEGO wants to act like a premium product, then I will critique them as a premium product. This set costs nearly $1000 - and you can bet your bottom dollar LEGO is hoping to release sets at that price point in the future. Once things reach that price point, I think it’s fair for the gloves to come off.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Possibly a bit off topic but does anyone know why the rubber feet of 10281: Bonsai Tree changed? Was there a problem with the original design / part usage?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

So, in reality,

'LEGO has designed a set that can't be taken apart'

actually means,

'LEGO has designed a set that's slightly tricky to dismantle, that may result in minor cosmetic scratches to a totally hidden axle'

O.K. admittedly not quite such a snappy headline!

Gravatar
By in United States,

I realized, I have experienced something somewhat similar. The black 3L 2-pin technic connectors (as used on the UCS Falcon, among other things) are extremely hard to remove because they have no groove to get a finger nail (err, I mean brick separator, of course...) underneath. Some are nearly impossible because they're placed between other parts that make it hard to even get two fingers on either side of them.
If I were being optimistic, though, I'd suggest a finger nail (or brick separator) was intended to be wedged into the green piece to pop the pin out. But it is puzzling--it does seem like it was done this way on purpose since there are simpler (and easier to dismantle) methods of doing what they wanted here.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I would expect to be able to take apart a LEGO set using nothing apart from my hands and what was in the box. Of course an adult set might well be harder to take apart than a kid's one.

However I don't think it calls for the "sky is falling" thing some people are doing, I mean, this is one example and as sets go it sits at the extremes.

Gravatar
By in France,

It's a matter of principle that LEGO sets can and must be able to be taken apart.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@asteciuc:
The pin joiner serves no purpose to the construction. It’s only purpose is to prevent deconstruction. There are several ways this could have been assembled with the same functionality and still be easy to take apart. Given that everything has to be approved through the Design Department, it’s unlikely that they never tried to take this beast apart.

@merman:
I ran into a similar problem with the Batwing. The set was released telling you to hang it on a nail, and they guaranteed it would not slip off the nail...but they never gave any guidance on what type of nail to use. Just _a_ nail. A finish nail barely has a head, so it would slip right out of the nail-hanger element. A tiny picture hook nail would rip right out of the drywall as soon as you put weight on it. I was assured by the set designer himself that it would not fall off the nail, but told that they didn’t want to give you specific directions on what type of nail to use because they don’t know where you intend to hang it (and obviously you won’t be able to hammer a framing nail into a brick wall). I called costumer service, and they didn’t know any of this, because nobody had bothered to brief them on it. You’re going to get the same issue here. It was an intentional design choice, but nobody informed customer service about what was done, or what purpose it serves.

@eiffel006:
Without the green pin joiner, it’s easy. Grasp the axle joiner and pull it free of the bush pin, or push the bush pin flush with the frame. That’s all that’s needed to get the end of the flange axle out where you can grab it. Once that’s gone, the rest is pretty simple.

@monkyby87:
Sometimes it’s coincidence, because the parts are color-locked. Sometimes it’s done to expand the color palette for given parts. Sometimes it’s an Easter egg (often the home flag of the main designer). Sometimes it’s to get cake (SW set designers get cake any time they use a pink brick in a SW set). Sometimes it’s deliberately done to make construction easier (like the red/blue parts used inside the BttF DeLorean). Sometimes it’s to introduce a variety of colors in a fairly monochromatic set. And sometimes it’s because that color was already available, so it doesn’t blow the parts budget.

@Frank_Brickowski:
None of those companies have anywhere near the customer base that The LEGO Company has. Nor do any of them have the online community that the LEGO brand enjoys. People have problems with a lot of those sets (I’ve heard direct feedback regarding massive inventory errors in some of these clone sets), but even reviewing the sets to show how bad they are will result in an uproar about writing a single article about clone brands, even if it’s harshly negative. So all we really see regarding many of these brands is glowing praise from a few Germans who brush off any problems as trivial and inconsequential because the subject matter appeals to the German market. And really, that’s no different than brushing off this permanent hip joint design as trivial and inconsequential because a giant AT-AT appeals to yourself.

@rslotb:
The purpose is not about leaving a 1L bit of pin sticking out of the end of the frame. A 2L pin would manage that much more easily. It’s about creating a backstop that locks the turntable so it can’t come loose from the frame. The turntable mounts are the same distance apart as the sides of the frame. If they were two studs wider or narrower, you could simply shove bush pins in from the outer edge until it was (temporarily) locked in place. The way this is designed, the turntable creates a shelf on the top end of the leg. The frame can either rest on that shelf (safe!), or hang below it (children beware!). The cotter pin assembly prevents it from detaching if you put one in upside-down with the frame hanging below the turntable mounts. Or if you put all four in upside-down.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@YanVanLan:
I heard of one such company in the US, and I heard complaints that parts and minifigs were missing when someone rented the set. There’s no guarantee that they are actually verifying the correct inventory each time the set gets sent back.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

@LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

THIS!!
This made me laugh.
Such a storm in a teacup!
It doesn’t need a big article and hundreds of comments - note it, and everyone move on with their lives.
So what if a tiny part of your gigantic set can’t be taken apart!!!

Gravatar
By in Singapore,

@Huw said:
"Given the article is about one set, I have changed the title to counter the accusations of generalisation."
I hope that, despite the "counter accusations" phrasing, this change was a sincere effort to make amends, as such phrasing usually suggests otherwise. I think enough commenters besides Mark himself have explained how the original title was indeed an extrapolation of the actual subject matter and thus betrayed the intent of the article, in its pursuit of sensationalism. I have faith in Brickset's journalistic integrity and hope that this was a momentary lapse in judgement given the severity of the issue at hand (which, again, is absolutely worth addressing).

Gravatar
By in United States,

If I was going to appear on Lego Masters, I'd be studying these "cannot be taken apart" techniques to use for various challenges. I have a feeling it would come in handy for some builds. ...although the team that works to disassemble sets and put parts back in the brick pit would probably hate me for building a bridge where the entire deck cannot be taken apart.

I was thinking about this article after watching last season:
https://brickset.com/article/51323/can-you-build-the-impossible

Gravatar
By in United States,

@lemish34 said:
" @LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

THIS!!
This made me laugh.
Such a storm in a teacup!
It doesn’t need a big article and hundreds of comments - note it, and everyone move on with their lives.
So what if a tiny part of your gigantic set can’t be taken apart!!!
"


^^ I have to agree. If there's a hill to die on, this ain't it. Just out of curiosity I went to Bricklink to price the affected parts - $2 or $3 bucks maximum. Are you SO upset with your AT-AT? I'll take it then! Best LEGO set ever made, blasts the MF to tiny bits =oD

Gravatar
By in Turkey,

I do not have the Titanic but I saw a review of it on the web, and it seems attaching the propeller shafts seems to be a challenge. New age of Lego I guess.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Peculiar, but certainly not something to lose sleep over. Assume positive.

Is this the assembly that is exposed in the designer video @ 1:51 when the 'knee' panel is removed? Interestingly, no green pin connector in sight…

Gravatar
By in Australia,

@LegoDavid said:
"Remember that time when all the LEGO sets showed alternate models on the back of the box and had the slogan "Just Imagine..."? Those times are long gone. Welcome to the new age of AFOL collectors who do nothing but build the set once and leave it on display to gather dust for the rest of eternity.

Really sad to see what the company has ended up becoming. And I can imagine it will only get worse as they continue to expand into the "adult" market. "


I really don't understand this statement - collectors popping their stuff on a shelf in no way impedes the traditional play pattern of Lego (this AT-AT issue notwithstanding...). If you want to buy assembly square and make whatever you like, well....go for it?

The parts library is better than it's ever been, and TV shows like Lego Masters put an emphasis on creativity and MOC building among adults. In fact, there's a number of random people at my work that I NEVER would have expected to get in to Lego, who are now buying sets from all ranges regularly as a direct result of that show. And yes, building their own creations...

Gravatar
By in United States,

A complete OVERREACTION. People building this set are not going to take it completely apart for every piece. If you are sophisticated enough to want to build it then break it down to sell parts then deal with the work-around of breaking a part of two.

By the amount of comments, I feel this is a valid opinion.

I would like to see a poll. Even though this forum is skewed.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@ThatBionicleGuy said:
" @gabri_ves said:
" @legoverslinder said:
"Here in the netherlands we have a store where you can hire Lego sets. If you are the second person who orders this set, you would be quite dissapointed."
wait, what's that? I never heard of "hiring" lego sets. I would like to know more about this."


Same! I've contemplated before on the whether the concept could exist, but was never able to figure out how it would work in practice. I'd be fascinated to learn about a store that manages to offer such a service effectively :D"


I’ve always thought a Lego library would be a good idea

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

It's surprising how aggressively people are defending this. It's a building toy. If we wanted a model that could only be put together once, we'd buy a model kit and use glue. This doesn't really compare to specialised pieces like Bionicle Toa eyes and Technic steering parts, since all these pieces are highly generalised, multi-purpose parts, and yet the instructions tell you to put them together in a way that can't be undone.

I don't think this is the end times, I suspect it's an oversight, but it's still very surprising that TLG would greenlight an irreversible assembly technique in 2021.

Gravatar
By in Russian Federation,

@FoolECK said:
"So many people calling "LEGO, how dare you doing that!?" but how many of you break your UCS sets into pieces or rebuild into something else? "

Half of my UCS's came secondhand and I was forced to rebuild them from scratch.

Gravatar
By in United States,

For larger flagship models I don't feel like this is an issue. I can't imagine many people will be spending this much n a set JUST to take it apart and sort it out for conventional use.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@PurpleDave said:
" @Frank_Brickowski :
None of those companies have anywhere near the customer base that The LEGO Company has. Nor do any of them have the online community that the LEGO brand enjoys. People have problems with a lot of those sets (I’ve heard direct feedback regarding massive inventory errors in some of these clone sets), but even reviewing the sets to show how bad they are will result in an uproar about writing a single article about clone brands, even if it’s harshly negative. So all we really see regarding many of these brands is glowing praise from a few Germans who brush off any problems as trivial and inconsequential because the subject matter appeals to the German market. And really, that’s no different than brushing off this permanent hip joint design as trivial and inconsequential because a giant AT-AT appeals to yourself.
"


You call all of the 20+ competing brands who have their own different portfolios, their own design teams, own specialised pieces and official licenses like from Star Trek, Boeing, Toyota, cooperations with Museums etc. "clone brands"? Seriously? This is nothing but ridiculous.

Gravatar
By in Brazil,

I think set 75256 "Kylo Ren's Shuttle" has the same problem: in it the device to spread the wings can only be taken apart by forcing some pieces in order to get the yellow cross axle out of the hole/white bricks 1X2 with cross (on the right side of the shuttle main body).

Gravatar
By in United States,

@PDelahanty:
I actually spent a while hunting that pair of articles down (I thought it was on New E) because I was pretty sure that’s where I’d seen this cotter pin technique before. Now I’m back to wondering if it popped up in an official set design before, because I’m sure I’ve seen that exact same cotter pin assembly before.

@Atbricks:
It appears to be the hip joint on all four legs. The article doesn’t show the step where it’s installed, but you can see the outer gear of the turntable peeking out from the armor (seems like it would be particularly vulnerable to precision blaster fire).

@Frank_Brickowski:
How many of them market their product as being “compatible with major/leading brands”? Clone bricks. I’m aware that the history of the LEGO System is problematic itself, but people don’t buy LEGO sets because they think they’re actually Automatic Binding Bricks sets, and the stud-and-tube upgrade is comparable in impact to the original ABB design. Nobody that has come since has contributed made such a game-changing improvement. If they had, The LEGO Company would have at least one serious competitor, where currently you’d have to probably combine sales from all those 20+ companies to equal Pepsi to LEGO’s Coke.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I just lost a massive (probably self-indulgent) comment about the linguistic tactics on display in these comments, strawman, logicalfallacy websites, my newly found desire to learn etc etc.

There are many of us concerned about future official LEGO sets being designed with connections which are permanent (in the normal sense of how LEGO connections are made and unmade).

Should we be known as 'separatists'? :D

I don't really think there is an opposition 'pro-permanent' camp, but there are a lot of seemingly 'anti-separatist' sentiments on display.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Can you not use the pin part of a brick separator to push it out?

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@PurpleDave said:
" @PDelahanty:
I actually spent a while hunting that pair of articles down (I thought it was on New E) because I was pretty sure that’s where I’d seen this cotter pin technique before. Now I’m back to wondering if it popped up in an official set design before, because I’m sure I’ve seen that exact same cotter pin assembly before.

@Atbricks:
It appears to be the hip joint on all four legs. The article doesn’t show the step where it’s installed, but you can see the outer gear of the turntable peeking out from the armor (seems like it would be particularly vulnerable to precision blaster fire).

@Frank_Brickowski:
How many of them market their product as being “compatible with major/leading brands”? Clone bricks. I’m aware that the history of the LEGO System is problematic itself, but people don’t buy LEGO sets because they think they’re actually Automatic Binding Bricks sets, and the stud-and-tube upgrade is comparable in impact to the original ABB design. Nobody that has come since has contributed made such a game-changing improvement. If they had, The LEGO Company would have at least one serious competitor, where currently you’d have to probably combine sales from all those 20+ companies to equal Pepsi to LEGO’s Coke."


Alright, so any car manufacturer besides Ford is also a clone brand in your POV? Have you ever heard of patents and how they expire to be used legally by EVERYBODY afterwards throughout the entire global economy? Obviously not. It completely does not matter at all if you contribute to or improve anything. This is how the global industry has been working for decades. Still yours is obviously working differently.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@R0Sch said:
"Sorry to post this here, but for the sake of transparency, here is how to remove the axle from this assembly, as demonstrated by RB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl73fynSKI"


Exactly as I described, and far from ideal!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@R0Sch said:
"Sorry to post this here, but for the sake of transparency, here is how to remove the axle from this assembly, as demonstrated by RB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl73fynSKI "

I did assume that, due to the size of the frame, the axle could probably easily be flexed out, but I didn't have a frame handy to try it with.

Right from the start this was roughly equal in difficulty to removing old style tiles that didn't have grooves!

Gravatar
By in United States,

Step 66 on the new playset At-At 75288 actually does have a similar issue. It’s a stopper axle with a stud on the end, but it’s still a pain to get out without wiggling the pieces back and forth enough to get your fingernail under the end. Surprised no one has brought that up, or maybe there is some easier way to take it a part that I haven’t figured out.

Gravatar
By in Romania,

Give the designers a break though... I haven't built this set yet, but given the fact that its legs can support the vehicle's weight whilst being posable is amazing to me. I believe this set to be an incredible piece of LEGO engineering and I think we should appreciate how amazing this AT-AT is on so many levels, instead on freaking out over a nitpick..

Gravatar
By in Hungary,

@Huw said:
" @R0Sch said:
"Sorry to post this here, but for the sake of transparency, here is how to remove the axle from this assembly, as demonstrated by RB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl73fynSKI"


Exactly as I described, and far from ideal!"


In the article I only found the "knife in the slot" method which might damage the axle, but as you see in the video it is fairly easy to push the axle with stop out a little bit, just enough to be able to use your nails and grab the head. It is not ideal I agree, but can be done fairly easily without any actual damage.

Gravatar
By in United States,

100,000 views! Wow, this seems to be quite a popular article, and also very interesting

Gravatar
By in United States,

@RacingBrick said:
"In the article I only found the "knife in the slot" method which might damage the axle, but as you see in the video it is fairly easy to push the axle with stop out a little bit, just enough to be able to use your nails and grab the head. It is not ideal I agree, but can be done fairly easily without any actual damage."

THANK YOU!! @RacingBrick
If ever the community needed a :59 second cool down, it is now.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Most read article of all time?

To be fair, I don't think the headline is clickbait, it's just very interesting and something that a lot of Lego fans are likely to want to know more about.

'Clickbait' generally describes a headline which could sum up the main points of the article but deliberately doesn't. This doesn't really meet that description because even saying 'The new Lego AT-AT can't be taken apart' would still leave most people wondering why, and it's impossible to describe why in just a headline.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Paperballpark said:
"Most read article of all time?

To be fair, I don't think the headline is clickbait, it's just very interesting and something that a lot of Lego fans are likely to want to know more about.

'Clickbait' generally describes a headline which could sum up the main points of the article but deliberately doesn't. This doesn't really meet that description because even saying 'The new Lego AT-AT can't be taken apart' would still leave most people wondering why, and it's impossible to describe why in just a headline."


It’s a moot point now since the title was changed, but it was still misleading in its original form. No harm done though.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Frank_Brickowski:
Don’t be ridiculous. Robert Street made the first internal combustion engine, François Isaac de Rivaz was the first person to power an automobile with one, and Karl Benz was the first to produce a commercial automobile that people could actually buy. Henry Ford didn’t make his mark for another thirty years, when he invented the assembly line and made cars affordable to the masses. However, the fundamentals of the ICE date back over 2500 years to the first piston, then 800 years ago to the first crankshaft, and several other advancements have been made in the last century. Several different people in various countries were all trying to develop a “horseless carriage” simultaneously, and independent of each other.

But none of that means anything, because you never see a Chevy being marketed as being compatible with a Ford. Each is a product unto itself, where the 2x4 brick isn’t even useful as a paperweight on its own. It only has value in quantities, at which point there is a possibility of someone mimicking your product with the intention of cutting into your sales by placing their products near your own (and expecting some customers won’t notice the difference), by making sure they know the two brands are compatible (so you can test it out without having to commit to a completely new system like K’Nex or Erector), and by riding your company’s marketing budget.

In the car market, any manufacturer that’s trying to convince you they’re as good as a Ford is probably much worse, any manufacturer that’s as good as a Ford is trying to convince you they’re better, and any manufacturer that’s better won’t even acknowledge them in the first place.

Gravatar
By in Switzerland,

Well, didn’t we want a sturdy construction, sturdy enough to be posed and articulated?

And by the way: Lego parts only being properly removable by a sharp knife is a thing since the 70s. Just ask my poor fingernails from back then..

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ijustwantone:
No. The bush pin inserts from inside the frame, and can only be removed the same way it went in. The axle joiner extends the bush, and combined with the pin joiner prevent the bush pin from being able to move. The flanged axle then keeps the pin joiner in position, and pushing it into the frame leaves the flange flush with the frame so there’s no way to grab it. It’s the LEGO equivalent of a Chinese finger trap.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@PjtorXmos said:
"(Yes I'm aware of that one Exo Force combiner model)"

I remember that one. Mountain Warrior, maybe?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@ijustwantone said:
"Can you not use the pin part of a brick separator to push it out?"
No, but as @RacingBrick has demonstrated, it takes around 2 seconds to remove with a quick wiggle!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Havok211 said:
"This set wasn’t designed with intention that parents would be buying it for their 6yo kids to do whatever it is they like to do with LEGO. It’s geared towards the adult collector who tends to build it once and put it on display so I can understand how it would be less of a concern of theirs going into designing a set like this and how this could have easily been overlooked. Still, to not have something ever be able to be disassembled completely is foolish. At some point, for whatever their reason may be, a set will need to be disassembled. Ultimately I think LEGO will have to release a fix for this."

Considering it can still be taken apart, albeit not easily, I don’t know if a fix is really needed. It’s not as if the pieces are glued together. I don’t suspect this is a trend, and is more of a unique situation with this particular model.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@CCC said:
" @TeaWeevil said:"
To be fair, it's just the four small sub-assemblies that are impossible to take apart. It doesn't prevent one from taking the rest of it apart. It's not optimal, but it's also not a huge part of the build. In my mind, it's more akin to stickers already being applied. I don't get the full building experience with a secondhand set that already has stickers put together, but it's not going to detract hugely from the experience (unless the stickers are applied poorly)."


It is still part of the build though, no matter how small. It might not stop the rest being deconstructed, but the builder knows that they will have never have built the whole thing themselves.

Due to the design, this set will probably now be famous for being the one that cannot be taken apart.
"


Honestly, with this kind of mindset, there is no happy ending. It's just an endless myopic spiral about how "that person didn't get to open the bags" or "I'll never experienced the joy of removing the tape from the cardboard box. "

If the experience of every single detail, down to just 5 pieces out of 7000, causes such misery, then a used set was doomed to fail from the beginning. Just buy it new!

Gravatar
By in United States,

@damien said:
"That's not how it's supposed to be, I guess... :-)

I already had a similair problem a few years ago with the 42056 Porsche, altough it wasn't as final as this one seems to be. At building point 362 (page 259) you have to put an 6L axle in a frame. On the inside of the frame the axle disappears in a few technic beams and finally in an axle connector. On the outside it sticks just 1L out, which is impossible to get grip on with just your fingers. I had to use some tools to get it out."


Impressive that you recall the full detail!

Gravatar
By in United States,

What other quality examples you see lately?

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Click Bait? Isn't that where you a headline attracts you to a webpage that turns out to be untrue or misleading? Because this isn't either of those. If Lego are just going to make display models then I'd strongly suggest Airfix/Tamiya or a dozen or so Model manufacturers to my fellow builders. The display piece produced will be 10 times more detailed than anything Lego could ever dream of, and it will be a damned sight cheaper.

Gravatar
By in Austria,

In fact this isn't the best design they ever did but it is definitely NOT IMPOSSIBLE to disassemble. And you DON'T nedd any sharp objects.
Lego pieces are flexible enough to wiggle it a bit and then you can grab the stopper-end of that axle and pull it out.
Video on that from RacingBrick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl73fynSKI
So as said, not the best solution but not sooo bad that the world would collaps. ;-)

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Yeah this is my first Lego set since I was a child, I'm not intending really to pull this all apart. But I made mistakes on one of the legs and had to pull it apart, a paper clip was able to remove the first issue. And if you take the under carriage off the Walker, you can easily push out the connectors holding the top section in.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@FoolECK said:
"So many people calling "LEGO, how dare you doing that!?" but how many of you break your UCS sets into pieces or rebuild into something else? "

Very true. But what if space becomes and issue after a move and they need to break it apart in a few places to move? It doesn’t sound like it’s easy to take apart with doing a ton of damage.

Also what if someone makes a mistake? I guess they’ll just have to report it under lost parts to lego so they rebuild those parts.

Not a big deal but it could’ve been avoided. Which makes me think it was a simple mistake.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Stebai said:
"Click Bait? Isn't that where you a headline attracts you to a webpage that turns out to be untrue or misleading? Because this isn't either of those."
Actually it's both! It can be taken apart... very easily.

I guess current Lego fans just don't have the dexterity of PBSFOLs (Pre Brick Separator Fans of Lego)!

Gravatar
By in United States,

all those pieces when a simple black pin would have sufficed? Ridiculous.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Blockus said:
"all those pieces when a simple black pin would have sufficed? Ridiculous. "

That doesn't accomplish the goal of locking the turntable in place

Gravatar
By in United States,

@Zerobricks said:
"I think this goes against the core of Lego's principles - You are suppose to be able to not just build, but also take apart and rebuild any model. And pushing an axle into a connector inside a frame is such a basic mistake..."

Is it maybe structural?

Gravatar
By in France,

You'll need a grapple hook and a light sabre to take it apart, it's Lego's way to make this set more authentic ;)

Gravatar
By in United States,

That's problematic on so many levels. Lego used to be made for creativity by alternate models and easy to take apart.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Useless post by me, but this IS going to be the most read article on Brickset ;-)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Meanwhile, Wayfair runs fresh out of fainting couches....

Gravatar
By in France,

Most viewed Brickset article ever. (In two and a half days nota bene, 213k views at the moment of writing).

Well deserved in my opinion, as it's a very important article.

A core Lego principle is at stake.

Gravatar
By in United States,

There is actually a very simple solution:
Leave out the green piece, and use pliers.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Personally I'm much happier with assemblies like this, that might take a couple of extra seconds to dismantle, than with a set like the VW T2 Campervan 10279 that dismantles itself if you breathe too heavily in the close vicinity.

Gravatar
By in Singapore,

Is this actually, something new? Ever try to dismantle the USC Falcon without REAL tools? I did… good luck!

Gravatar
By in United States,

50 percent of those that commented can’t afford the set.
The 45 percent who can afford the set, will see the set collapse from 40 years of dust build up.
4 percent will sell the set when they realize it’s a grey paper weight. While packaging the set, they will realize the part is stuck and just call it good.
0.75 percent will need to seek medical care for the mental trauma that LEGO has caused them.
0.20 percent will quit LEGO all together due to this error.
0.05 percent use super glue so it’s not really a issue.
.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I think what has to be said has already been said about this.

However, might I suggest a better solution over trying to carefully inch out the axle when attempting to take it apart?

I propose using an adhesive (that is Lego-safe, of course) to stick something to the flat end of the axle. Maybe strong tape, or low temperature hot glue (I'm not certain about if it's low temp enough to be safe for bricks) or water soluble school glue, then you only need to pull the axle out enough to get your nail under the axle stop. Then you just clean the axle of any adhesive residue and presto.

Gravatar
By in Canada,

They've definitely done this before. I can't remember which one, but one of the technic sets I have has a very similar construction in it. Can't remember the set but it was almost exactly the same issue.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I ran into this problem last night. I connected the rectangular piece offset by one hole which meant the legs wouldn't connect to the main body as pieces overlapped. I eventually discovered the issue and the only way to remove the piece was via a knife to move the piece edging it slow out took about 1hr to correct

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

I had to take it apart after I made a mistake on the rectangular shape which I had offset. I only discovered the problem when the legs wouldn't go onto the body. It took a while to identify the problem and then how to get it out. Only way I found was a knife through the slot of the green piece.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@PurpleDave said:
"The example with the No2 angle connector is more easily disassembled than the hip joint on the AT-AT. 2L axles (modern ones, at least) have notched ends, and if you have enough clearance around the tip, you can slide a hook of some sort in to extract them with. Unfortunately, if you 2L both ends, you’ll need to extract both axles to get the angle connector back out. It’s not easy in a pin hole (slotted axle holes provide an amazing amount of clearance to reach a small metal tool in), but it’s easier than trying to do the same to a smooth axle through the slot on a pin joiner.

@Brikkyy13:
If you build the hip joint correctly, it’s locked together so the turntable can’t pop loose if (when) someone installs it upside-down. If you screw up, short of forgetting to install the turntable _before_ you add the “cotter pin”, you should be able to disassemble it and fix your mistake.

@DoonsterBuildsLego:
If it matters to people, swap the pin connector for _THREE_ half-bushes. Slide them to the frame during assembly to keep the cotter pin from accidentally coming loose. Slide them towards the center of the frame and back out to (hopefully) pull the flanged axle out 1/2 stud, giving you something to grab onto to pull it the rest of the way free. From there, disassembly should be easy.

@JayCal:
Almost this exact same “cotter pin” design has been used at least once before. They know exactly what it does, and did it intentionally. But yes, the point of this is to make sure the turntable can’t detach from the frame if the frame is suspended from it rather than resting on it.

@davejbur:
You’re an engineer? How would you go about designing a lawyer-proof hip joint on a monstrous AT-AT that’s already top-heavy, even with all four legs firmly attached to the body? Keep in mind that if you post designer videos and set notes that identify you as the set designer, your name may be on the lawsuit if some toddler gets killed or injured when it collapses due to an accidental hip separation.

@R0Sch:
Tiles are thinner than plates, and have no studs to intersect the studs on the plate. It’s acceptable to wedge them between studs, but plates between studs is forbidden.

@MainBricker:
Leave the pin joiner out, and any injuries due to leg collapse are legally your fault."


Psst, how do you do multi-quotes? Is it a copy/paste workaround or an actual funtion? I'm conscious of spamming the comments section when I'm really getting into it :)

(I checked the FAQ first)

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I built the first of these upside down, connecting the impossible square retainer to the wrong side of the cog wheel it attaches too. It was incredibly difficult to pull it apart, but in the end used a tiny flat head screwdriver (meant for telephone repairs), on the end and pulled out the pin without making any damage. Only happened the once whilst building both parts at the same time.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ComfySofa:
Copy/paste, often using a text editor to type it up, so I don’t lose everything if the page has timed out.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@PurpleDave said:
" @ComfySofa:
Copy/paste, often using a text editor to type it up, so I don’t lose everything if the page has timed out."


Thanks P-Diddy!

Gravatar
By in Canada,

It’s actually easy to take apart. By pushing the orange pin, the axel disengage by half a millimeter. By working a little, I was able to take the axel off with the brick separator. It took a good 9 seconds.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@LostGemini said:
"OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF OUTRAGE!!! Really how many people will be buying this, building it and then actually be taking this set apart? Is it disappointing yes, a smidge but honestly this is barely a talking point. By all means though grab your pitchforks and demand a resignation"

I rebuild all my lego sets, even my huge UCS ones. I have rebuilt my new UCS star destroyer and my modular buildings. I fully plan on rebuilding this set many times. It's not some resignation I'm asking for, its for lego to follow through on allowing me to rebuild my sets.

Gravatar
By in United States,

have seen this same principle executed in a handful of very early hero factory sets where the red pin was not able to be removed after insertion through this exact step.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Try watching RackingBrick's YT - he did it quite simply. Dude's main vibe is Techic, probably why.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,


This assembly could be marketed as an aptitude test for Technic.

Lack of ability to dismantle it, using only bare hands, in under 5 seconds, could be an indicator that the candidate isn't quite ready to progress from Duplo.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I should probably clarify that the issue in question here is not necessarily how difficult the structure actually is to disassemble, but that doing so demands non-standard techniques. Relying upon a knife or the tolerance of the elements does not adhere to LEGO's general design standards.

Whether or not you consider that important, is up to you.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@CapnRex101 said:
"I should probably clarify that the issue in question here is not necessarily how difficult the structure actually is to disassemble,"
Well it kind of is, when the headline is 'Lego has designed a set that can't be taken apart'

"but that doing so demands non-standard techniques. Relying upon a knife or the tolerance of the elements does not adhere to LEGO's general design standards."
Presumably the pin joiner (without slot) was phased out in favour of the pin joiner (with slot) for precisely this situation.

And the fact that there is sufficient gap which allows for the joiner to slide means there is no reliance on element tolerance to disassemble. If you had to bend or distort components I would agree with you, but that's not the case.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

@sjr60 said:
"Presumably the pin joiner (without slot) was phased out in favour of the pin joiner (with slot) for precisely this situation."

I thought the slot was introduced to remove certain pins easier... like the Technic, Pin 1/2, part 4274

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@JayCal said:
" @sjr60 said:
"Presumably the pin joiner (without slot) was phased out in favour of the pin joiner (with slot) for precisely this situation."

I thought the slot was introduced to remove certain pins easier... like the Technic, Pin 1/2, part 4274"

I would assume it's to help remove anything that fits inside it!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@sjr60 said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I should probably clarify that the issue in question here is not necessarily how difficult the structure actually is to disassemble,"
Well it kind of is, when the headline is 'Lego has designed a set that can't be taken apart'

"but that doing so demands non-standard techniques. Relying upon a knife or the tolerance of the elements does not adhere to LEGO's general design standards."
Presumably the pin joiner (without slot) was phased out in favour of the pin joiner (with slot) for precisely this situation.

And the fact that there is sufficient gap which allows for the joiner to slide means there is no reliance on element tolerance to disassemble. If you had to bend or distort components I would agree with you, but that's not the case."


The headline describes the fundamental issue, that LEGO has produced a set which cannot be taken apart using conventional methods. As seasoned LEGO fans, we may consider knives or element tolerance typical means of disassembly, but LEGO's design principles say otherwise.

Personally, I do not consider the issue particularly important, although it is definitely worthy of discussion and many people evidently do consider it significant.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@CapnRex101 said:
"LEGO's design principles say otherwise."
Just out of interest, where might one view this mighty tome?

Gravatar
By in United States,

@sjr60:
No, the old pin joiner was retired because it was molded as two components that had to be glued together because there was no way to mold in an expanded cavity in the center for the flanged tips of Technic pins to hook into. Well, not until they realized that shoving a plate of metal in through the side can accomplish the same thing on a single-piece design. The slot is simply the result of that section of mold needing access to the center.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Racingbrick on YouTube already proved this false. There is enough wiggle room to remove the axle. But seriously, who is going to use this set for parts anyway?

Gravatar
By in United States,

@CapnRex101 @Huw:
Here is another interesting find, look at Book 2, page 34 (Step 280/281) and we'll see another pin that can be just has hard to remove down the road as well, you can't push anything down through the purple piece to remove it. Here is an image of it: https://ibb.co/zFYwrQ8

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@enzommx said:
" @CapnRex101 @Huw:
Here is another interesting find, look at Book 2, page 34 (Step 280/281) and we'll see another pin that can be just has hard to remove down the road as well, you can't push anything down through the purple piece to remove it. Here is an image of it: https://ibb.co/zFYwrQ8"


That pin is designed to be removed by inserting a 318 bar in the hole in the end, as we discussed above.

Gravatar
By in Sweden,

@nodnarb162 said:
"Step 66 on the new playset At-At 75288 actually does have a similar issue. It’s a stopper axle with a stud on the end, but it’s still a pain to get out without wiggling the pieces back and forth enough to get your fingernail under the end. Surprised no one has brought that up, or maybe there is some easier way to take it a part that I haven’t figured out. "

Just disassembled 75288 too, and noticed I had to use brute force to bend the parts apart from piece 6265643/frame-7x11. There is no legal way of doing this.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I remember there was a piece that couldn’t be removed from the combination model of 7700 and 7701, the Mountain Warrior. On one of the weapons, there’s an axle joiner than gets permanently locked in place with a 2l axle. Maybe the issue slipped under the radar because it was only an optional combo model?

Gravatar
By in United States,

@AHYL88 said:
" @chief7575 said:
"I have 75192 the UCS Millennium Falcon and I tore it down last year, as I didn't have the space for it to display currently. As I got to the end of deconstructing it, I found that I had to get pliers in order to dismantle it fully. There were definitely a few spots where I simply couldn't grasp or get to the parts with fingers or brick separators to un-build it.

It wasn't the end of the world for me. I wasn't "up in arms" or furious of what the LEGO group "had done to me or my building experience." Some of you really, really get worked up over nothing. I don't know what you do in your normal lives/jobs, but things like this are completely insignificant. It's still just a toy after all."


It's a toy you spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on; when you're spending that much already, it should have problems like these highlighted and taken into account. Otherwise, you're part of the problem, giving them a pass and letting them go ahead with stuff like this. Especially damaging parts that you've already spent significant amounts on."


I’m part of the problem? Why, because I’m not furious about 1 instruction error and not screaming from the rooftops on a message board about it? Again, completely insignificant. Another user pointed out the ratio of this error. 900+ sets released this year, what 40-50 instructions on avg per set? So 45,000 instructions and 1 is problematic.

I’ve worked in customer service for years. This isn’t an issue that causes me alarm. It’s fine if others are bothered by it. That’s their right. But I’m really ok if an error was made. It happens. No need to crucify a company or individual when it happens. Somebody can inform them and they can be more diligent to correct it in the future.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,


Personally I believe that if the simple command,

'Alexa, dismantle my AT-AT',

doesn't work, all sets should immediately be recalled and crushed.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@AHYL88 said:
"It's a toy you spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on; when you're spending that much already, it should have problems like these highlighted and taken into account. Otherwise, you're part of the problem, giving them a pass and letting them go ahead with stuff like this. Especially damaging parts that you've already spent significant amounts on."

Umm...it's our money, and we'll do with it what we please. We're part of the problem, eh? Hmmm...what should be done with all of us 'problematic' folk? What to do with us all?

This whole discussion is devolving, and it's beginning to bring out some ugly rhetoric.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Whilst the article is interesting, it's been the comments for me that have been fascinating. There appears to be several discussions (and clearly some arguments) showing that we have many flavours of lego fans with differing styles of lego experiences and views of how we enjoy lego.

We can see there are many who build to display and keep, or those who build to achieve the completed task but sell on to be able to buy more, or yet again those that build and dismantle to then add the parts to their overall collection for MOC building. I admit that these are some very general descriptions of lego fans.

The fact is we are all unique, all have a unique set of circumstances and all have a unique (sum of) thoughts and opinions. Should we not respect each other and each other's opinions? Clearly some people do not have the same resources as others, whether living in a country where lego is hard to get or more expensive compared to another and far more expensive in relation to standard earning/living, or individually limited by space and storage in their home or by personal wealth. These certainly can impact on how one person experiences lego. But we also have different reasons to enjoy the same thing and that certainly affects how we experience lego. I therefore cannot say people who buy the 75313 AT-AT will only display it and never take it apart.

I personally love the building experience, following instructions, sorting the pieces, seeing how the build progresses. I find it calming and, I guess, therapeutic. I actually open up all the bags at once, no matter how big a build, and sort through the pieces by type rather than colour. I do enjoy the finished set but it doesn't stay built for long before being dismantled - a large reason is space and my wife isn't too happy with lego 'lying' around! I do have a compulsion for completing collections. So I have been focused on one theme only, Technic, which is ridiculous as I really can't afford it! All my sets then are kept separate in RUBs to rebuild again.

As to the dismantling issue highlighted in this article. If I was buying it I wouldn't have a problem. I love the engineering of sets and of problem solving, so rather than "this can't be dismantled" it would be how to do it with minimal cosmetic damage - probably as has been suggested, using a knife. I don't have an issue with Lego. I agree with @chief7575 's comment [05 Dec 2021 07:04]. Mistakes can happen, even in the biggest corporations, no one is perfect and all companies are run by people.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,


The point of a set that can't be taken apart is a red herring... It can.

The point of damaging a component is a red herring... It has been shown the component can simply be wiggled apart, without any requirement for a knife.

The only debate is whether wiggling a component apart, using available space, not bending or stressing the component, is a legitimate technique, or if it breaks a 'Lego design principle'

Well, if wiggling a component isn't a standard, legitimate disassembly technique, then I've been doing it wrong for nearly 60 years!

Gravatar
By in United States,

I don’t like this as a potential harbinger of future design principles, and I’m also a little surprised that there’s so many folks here saying people are off-base for caring about it. In 2021 do we still rank people’s concerns? I think it’s reasonable to see this as a misstep. I also think it’s reasonable that many people won’t see it as an issue.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Nabubrush said:
"In 2021 do we still rank people’s concerns?"
It's certainly reasonable for Lego to rank people's concerns. Black instruction backgrounds were a concern that ranked highly enough to be changed. It remains to be seen if this current concern ranks highly enough to justify any action. I seriously doubt it, especially for 18+ sets.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I'm shocked that so many people actually care about this! So buy these up before they pull them from the market and issue a similar set, and the original becomes impossible to find. Way to go, people.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I put the orange pin the wrong side on one AT-AT leg this weekend. Had to destroy the green piece with some pliers in order to fix it. Thankfully I had 1 spare of that piece on hand in silver from a past set. whew!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I was thinking the axles were to hold socket end of the orange pin, reducing any possible movement that a standard 2780 would have. But I've looked at where it attaches, and in step 124 there's 7 of them that'll certainly hold the frame solidly in place! Definitely interested to hear what happens if anyone builds it with a regular pin instead.

Return to home page »