Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
On a more serious note, people like to make fun of the phrase or what it refers to, but this design flaw fully and precisely meets the definition. This is the kind of thing LEGO strives to avoid in their designs, and this specific issue was a miss on their part. But you start to understand why the designation is meant to be taken seriously, even with the use of the word "illegal". Especially with the use of that word. The word "illegal" has other meanings than just "the LEGO Police are coming to get you". Interesting. I did wonder whether there might be an issue like that, or perhaps another studio holding the rights to Shuma-Gorath. After all, why use the name of a little-known tentacled villain if they could have included the more famous character?" It seems likely to me that the tile either represents a specific movie prop separate from the character's costume (as you suggested in another comment), or was designed for another set we haven't seen yet and was included here as a sort of a bonus detail/"Easter egg"— sort of like the LEGO Dots rainbow prints that made an early appearance in the Trafalgar Square set. But the designers certainly have managed to include plenty of LGBTQ+ characters in past sets without any sort of obligation to call it out in the sets themselves. Well, that's three Lego lesbians, from three different fictional universes. (Tracer, Batwoman, and now America Chavez.) Wonder when they'll get around to the other letters because they've got the L covered. Although I guess 40516 could count..."
The set contains no completely brand-new parts, but there are some new colors/prints among the inventory that are of interest. The 4×4 dome with 2×2 recessed center just debuted in 2021, and this is its first appearance in trans-yellow. That piece pairs with a new print on the 2×2 plate with rounded bottom to make up the creature’s eye. The elephant trunk/tail is available here in olive green for the first time. And there’s a 1×1 round tile with a rainbow print that acts as a minifigure accessory. I’m betting we see lots more of this piece in upcoming Dots sets.
Details
Huw's article discusses this issue in detail and I find it extremely unlikely that LEGO considers the technique 'legal'. If the flange on the wheel arch was just pushing the ball cups outwards slightly, I might agree. However, a 1x6 plate is then attached beneath those ball cups, forcing them to detach partially from the wheel arch and creating the gaps. Unless design rules have changed recently, elements are definitely required to be pressed down firmly and completely on the stud(s) underneath. You did the right thing, Huw. It's possible, and very important, to call out these quality issues in an objective but kind and human manner. Like others I think this article does a much better job of that. LEGO does want to know about these quality issues. Maybe they cancelled 40489 because they caught whatever issue it was just in time. (I've heard rumors to something entirely different but I'm not going to quote them here.) Just because these issues come up post-production doesn't mean LEGO has fallen off as a company or they stopped caring altogether. It just means even the most stringent of processes isn't 100% foolproof. To me, the AT-AT was a non-issue. This, on the other hand, is a serious issue (no matter what were the reasons why: physical or digital build, ancient mould, or what have you). It may not be a serious issue in terms of life and death but it is a serious issue in terms of QC and the premium asked for by the Lego Group. This is not a set I'm interested in but I was interested in getting the Lambo Sian and refrained to do so because their colour matching is so off that I cannot bring myself to spend that sort of money on so poor quality product. I am glad this has been reported and I don't care much if it is done politely or not - this is a "free" service helping Lego catching something they should have seen themselves and in the end help them get better (assuming they eventually learn the lesson). As for whether or not we’re being too harsh... honestly, I’m in the camp that we’re not. I’ve said it before that LEGO is acting like a premium brand, so I expect premium quality. Especially with the prices they ask for most sets. However, there is a civil way to give a heads up that something seems off, and I believe articles like this are the way to go.
What do you think -- Is this a problem that would worry you, or doesn't it matter? Should we continue to bring issues like this to your attention?"
49 comments on this article
An illegal technique is not one that causes undue stress to the parts, but one that is _recognized_ to cause undue stress to the parts. There are tons of high-stress techniques that have never been considered for an official set, and therefore remain off the list. I created one myself, about two decades ago. It’s probably not on the list, because it’s so stressful that you almost need to use furniture to force the connections. If you can't name any, then we can assume the both of you didn't dig very much into the topic off-brands." CapnRex101 tells me that it does not prevent 76205 Gargantos Showdown from being assembled, nor does it have a detrimental effect on the finished model, but it doesn't seem to meet the high design standards to which we have become accustomed, and of course the parts will be stressed which may result in damage over time. This set comes in a “thumb punch” style rectangular box. The front image depicts the three included minifigures in battle against a multi-armed, one-eyed monster as they all progress up the side of a city skyscraper. This seems to be a running theme for this franchise, as 76060 Doctor Strange’s Sanctum Sanctorum also pitted three of the film’s characters against a tentacled foe. Photos of the film’s cast are present on the right-hand side of the box, and this set includes three of the four featured characters. Scarlet Witch gets left out, but she was available in the latest Marvel Collectible Minifigure series if you want to complete the band.
Great Deal 
New Comment