AT-AT designer shows how to take it apart

If only my fingernails worked like needle nose pliers like this guy’s...

I'm not sure we need another fandom news cycle devoted to the manufactured scandal that a massive $800 set made compromises in the name of stability that will never affect 99% of builders.

@Your_Future_President said:
"If only my fingernails worked like needle nose pliers like this guy’s..."

Couldn't you use the thin end of the brick separator instead?

and here I was worried we'd have an entire week pass without mentioning this again

I'm stilly *very* interested what doesn't work for you :)

@Thunbear said:
"and here I was worried we'd have an entire week pass without mentioning this again"
My thoughts exactly! Can we move past this now please?

*sigh* I guess we’re all still pretending that we haven’t always used our fingernails or other pieces we shouldn’t to take apart Lego pieces. We don’t need a video, no, but given the outcry and outright whining many have displayed over this topic, it seems a video was needed.

Slow news days I guess.

I already forgot about this, here we go again I suppose...

Fake news. An AFOL on Brickset said this assembly was impossible to take apart just by looking at the instructions. Surely we are not going te believe LEGO, right?

I’m kidding, obviously. I’m just happy that this will stop the “impossible to take apart” non sense.

Is this honestly something people are upset about? The fact that a small portion of a collectors set was designed to be hard to disassemble for stability?

So simple a fully grown man with years of experience can do it!

I jest! My usual method for separating Technic parts is to just bang the whole structure on a table until it starts flying apart. So it’s basically what this guy does, just a little less advanced.

Maybe I can annoy my wife less this way!

@brickpics216 said:
"Is this honestly something people are upset about? The fact that a small portion of a collectors set was designed to be hard to disassemble for stability?"

Some people apparently were VERY upset about this.

Hashtag/HenrikTheHero.

I mean its pretty obvious to anyone that took 5 seconds to look rather than raise a pitchfork....

Thanks for the update. It didn't pertain to me since I will never own this set. But good to have a follow up to a previous news report so there can be closure to the issue.

Sure sounds like a lot of haters on this page. *shrug*

Love the majority of Brickset’s output but man, gotta be completely honest here, sometimes your priorities are *really* weird - devoting several articles to a handful of parts that needed a bit of elbow grease to remove feels a bit overkill all in all!

@RacingBrick said:
"I'm stilly *very* interested what doesn't work for you :)"
It only can't be taken apart by anyone with a bet on how long a non news story can be kept going.
To be honest, it's getting a bit embarrassing now.
Starting to feel more like a resume for someone applying to join the Sunday Sport!

he talks cool.

I still remember the days of the old black pins. Now they were a sod to get out with full grip. Especially the 8865 Test Car for some reason (perhaps that was the year they were first introduced - can't remember). Good memories though.

Excellent. Case now closed. This video is as great as it was needed, and it is truly a great video.

Bunch of whiners in here. Not every article is for every person. If you can tell from the headline that you aren’t interested, maybe just scroll past it instead of clicking on it and clogging up a comment section just to let everyone know you didn’t want to read it.

Good. This is the best possible response from the company and the designer. Two thumbs up. It's a very professional production that thoroughly, yet briefly, addresses the concerns, and it's up on YouTube where it'll be easy to find for the foreseeable future. I wish every customer concern were addressed this thoroughly by every company.

He looks like my uncle Leonard.

@legoapprentice said:
"Bunch of whiners in here. Not every article is for every person. If you can tell from the headline that you aren’t interested, maybe just scroll past it instead of clicking on it and clogging up a comment section just to let everyone know you didn’t want to read it."

It’s really no different than you commenting on the people commenting on the article.

It's ridiculous that this design ever made it into a production set. So what if 99% of owners will never take it apart (and that's purely a guess, anyway)? The few who want to shouldn't need a tutorial. The point of LEGO is that you can build something, then take it apart and build something else.

I never take my sets apart. That's over 35 years of sets numbering nearly 1000.

LEGO really nailed it!

@560heliport said:
"It's ridiculous that this design ever made it into a production set. So what if 99% of owners will never take it apart (and that's purely a guess, anyway)? The few who want to shouldn't need a tutorial. The point of LEGO is that you can build something, then take it apart and build something else. "

What's ridiculous is that grown wo/men are acting like 3 years old and pulling a tantrum about it, based on a set of imaginary rules.

I love this site, and Huw's contribution to the community is amazing, but I have a feeling the reason it's a repeated news item is due to the fact he "still can't do it!".

Hey, nice to get an official word on the matter! Now that this whole debacle is hopefully behind us, I hope people can now enjoy this set without worrying about it being unable to be dismantled.

Was anyone going to take the AT-AT apart anyway?

They (Lego) can now make a polybag out of it. Technic/Star Wars themed set and just 6 parts; 12 if you want to include the turntable. Just add a catchy phrase like: "can you undo it?" and you have a top seller.

We've had fans show how to take it apart; we've had Lego issue a written statement; several people, including PurpleDave and myself, suggested alternative assemblies that can sidestep the issue; now Lego have shown on video how to take it apart...

Are we finally done now?

@Rob42 said:
"We've had fans show how to take it apart; we've had Lego issue a written statement; several people, including PurpleDave and myself, suggested alternative assemblies that can sidestep the issue; now Lego have shown on video how to take it apart...

Are we finally done now?"

Give it about a week. We’ll have the pitchforks and torches out in no time!

And I wondered why I don’t frequent this site anymore…..

It helps to have strong hands and not to try and attempt this right after cutting your fingernails.

But totally doable and not a design flaw, not an impossible impediment to disassembly. As has been mentioned TLG has introduced parts just as difficult to remove as this assembly in the past (the original black 2L friction technic pin comes to mind) so unless you all want to ignore that precedent, it's something you're going to run into from time to time with technic parts, by design.

Would think the mountain that’s been made out of this is bigger than Everest by now…

Good video. But it wasn't hard to take apart in the first place.

Brilliant video, quick and to the point. Thanks LEGO, that was the right thing to do.

So if - AFTER ALL THIS - you're still struggling, maybe go back to the 4+ sets or Duplo for a spell. We'll be right here, K? K. I'll leave the hallway light on....

Nobody seems to bat an eye that a 7,000 (ish) piece model is tricky to put together so why are we surprised and offended that it isn't straightforward to take apart?

For the life of me, I'll never understand the uproar about this. Are you people really buying an $800 set to use for parts?

Even if you want to disassemble it to store/move it, what the heck is the big deal if this section won't come apart (easily)?

I understand that a lot of people don’t care about disassembling the AT-AT, but can everyone please stop criticizing Brickset and Huw? They put the issue out into the public and it’s received a lot of popularity, so it’s only logical that they post Lego’s response.

If you don’t care about the topic then you don’t have to read the article or watch the video!

While I too find the whole matter blown a little out of proportion, I do value the original article highlighting the issue and the subsequent reaction to it by LEGO.

Then again, when I think back, how many times did I use my teeth back in the day to gnaw out those old damn black Technic pins that just wouldn't budge when you wanted to take your sets apart again. Anyone who has lived through those days simply has to laugh at what is considered problematic nowadays.

Maybe if you still can't do it you could post a video of you trying, in order to demonstrate how hard it is? As someone who doesn't own the set, I have to say this official designer video sure does make it look easy to disassemble. So I'd love to see a video of the opposite side of the spectrum.

@Huw said:
" @elangab said:
" @560heliport said:
"It's ridiculous that this design ever made it into a production set. So what if 99% of owners will never take it apart (and that's purely a guess, anyway)? The few who want to shouldn't need a tutorial. The point of LEGO is that you can build something, then take it apart and build something else. "

What's ridiculous is that grown wo/men are acting like 3 years old and pulling a tantrum about it, based on a set of imaginary rules.

I love this site, and Huw's contribution to the community is amazing, but I have a feeling the reason it's a repeated news item is due to the fact he "still can't do it!"."

Given that we raised the issue in the first place it's natural that we'd follow up with LEGO's responses. It has nothing to do with my lack of dexterity."

I'm sure it would've been reported differently if you saw it as a nonissue/pulled it out easily. It was a dramatic reporting from the get-go "and some sub-assemblies within it are impossible to dismantle without resorting to using sharp metal implements".

I remember as a kid, with some sub-assemblies of two 2X4 plates, I had to resort to using hard, calcified structures for dismantling, but I survived :)

I envisage LEGO conventions in future where contestants compete to see who can disassemble sub-assemblies like this one the fastest without damaging any pieces!

I’m not betting on @Huw winning any prizes ;~P

I think we can fondly look back on 2021 as the year of Lego outrage (or Brickset comment outrage). Black boxes, Vidiyo, “This isn’t a castle/classic space/pirates!”, AT-AT disassembly struggles…

Bring on 2022! I’ll put the popcorn on.

@PurpleDave said:
" @RaiderOfTheLostBrick said:
"Was anyone going to take the AT-AT apart anyway?"

I think some guy name Lou, or maybe Duke, was planning to do it this weekend with high explosives."
“You were only supposed to blow the bloody axles off!”

@AcademyofDrX said:
"I'm not sure we need another fandom news cycle devoted to the manufactured scandal that a massive $800 set made compromises in the name of stability that will never affect 99% of builders."

You know you don't have to read every article right?

The box needs a disclaimer, ***not for Karens who happen to be 18+***.

Good job Brickset for making this an issue that Lego needed to address... (sigh). This got taken to a whole new level that does not make any sense. I own this set and can say these issues are NOT anything that needed this much press.

@STL_Brick_Co said:
"And I wondered why I don’t frequent this site anymore….."

But....you clearly do, and you went even further and posted a comment on the site you don't visit to let people know that you don't visit it.

I'm not a Technic builder, but the construction did stand out to me as strange since there wasn't an obvious way to dismantle it. I'm glad the original article was posted & I appreciate TLG responding in kind. I don't get why people are complaining about it. Maybe don't click the article if it makes you mad?

I was very interested in this subject ever since Huw posted the first article about it.
I know that UCS sets aren't meant to be disassembled, but in principle it's still a LEGO set, which should be able to be taken apart for creativity.
Thanks Huw for following up on this matter, it's great to see LEGO offering solutions

My thoughts on all this:

Not everyone can take things apart as easily as you can, let alone Henrik. I myself struggle with most things without a separator. And even the able-bodied among us will find it increasingly difficult as we get older. Even if you accept that you're just not going to be able to enjoy LEGO past a certain point in life, it's going to suck. Don't impose that suckery on others. Leave them alone. Also, just because some disabled people can build LEGO seemingly without aids (how do you know they don't use unseen aids?) doesn't mean every disabled person can or should have to. Not all disabilities are the same.

MandR was right about some of the unnecessarily alarmist comments on the original article. And it's not like he's the only one who thinks this is a non-issue to the overwhelming majority of customers — many members of our community think the same. This is only an issue to the absolute staunchest of purists (who, again, are among the ones Ryan was criticizing anyway), and given that this is only an issue in theory to me but a non-issue in practice, I don't know that I am that staunch.

I don't know if the original article was also genuinely trying to be alarmist or if it was being facetious and unintentionally blown out of proportion. But with a headline like either the original or even the amended one, can you really blame the media alone?

Also, not frequenting this site doesn't mean completely boycotting the site and/or LEGO. Sure, some people, like those who have openly declared multiple times they want nothing more to do with LEGO ever again because LEGO decided to support queer people, logically ought never to set foot on this site again, let alone make us waste our time reading their words. But there are those of us who do want to use Brickset for content that matters to us and it's so disheartening to see the comments on some of this content, not just content that's otherwise celebratory and in praise, but even articles that are reasonably critical of things LEGO needs to do better.

In this case, though, I honestly feel like Brickset enabled the comment dumpster fire in the first place. In other words: Wanna know why there were people calling the downfall of LEGO and everything they stood for? Because the article itself spun it like "woe to us all, LEGO has made a set that can't be broken down to its individual constituent elements 100.00%!"

It was absolutely fine to write an article letting us know of this subassembly that can't be easily taken apart, that's information and information is always nice to have. And I'm happy with this article saying that it's still not as easy as Henrik makes it seem (for those who can do it like Henrik can, good for them! This video exists to inform those to whom these methods have not occurred). But knowing the alarmist and apocalyptic Brickset comments will come either way, sensationalizing the article itself does no one any favors.

It's an 18+ set with advanced building techniques.

I personally like that it's advanced enough that they've put out a Tips video to explain some techniques.

Well done to Huw, and Brickset for publishing the original article.

Well done to Lego for coming up with the response, those who are interested, or who have purchased this set deserve.

See everyone is happy....

If this doesn't interest you, why have you read down this far?

Wasn't expecting this amount of criticism in the comments, some of them even reaching the insult point. What a shame.

I personally don't find this subassembly issue to be crucial, but found it pretty interesting to know about.

Also, it's not mandatory to read every article posted on Brickset. I'm not into Brickheadz nor Harry Potter sets, so I omit them.

LOL he makes it look so easy. There must be some major differences in surface texture & friction between different parts batches. I've gone through this process probably a dozen times this same way in the past couple of weeks (and again just now) in testing to see if it's a non-issue like some would say. It is not a non-issue -- i.e. it is absolutely an issue, though not one to get hysterical over (and very few people have gone crazy over it, rather, I see mostly curiosity and understandable concern about a possible massive change in standards). Not once has the axle come out with one or two cycles of this technique. I've tried different force application to the green sleeve, at either end or in the center. I've tried different angles on it. It usually takes 6-10 cycles after which three fingers and both thumbs are white. During assembly I keep my hands completely dry and clean -- the parts are free of skin oils and in new, original condition.

Without demonstration of a tricky, unnatural technique from a master like this, plenty of normal LEGO fans (not decades-seasoned Technic experts) would not be able to take this apart. I say this as someone who has defeated every classic "irreversible" LEGO technique I've ever seen. Plus, there are cheap, simple, easy part substitutions that maintain far more than the needed strength and are easy to disassemble. This was a very valid subject for Huw to bring attention to in the first place. LEGO is great, Henrik is amazing, but neither is incontrovertibly infallible, and that's okay too. Not a huge deal, but one worth covering.

I wonder if Huw ever thinks "You know, I could have just had a nice, regular job..."

Very enjoyable video. I want more videos from LEGO showing their talented employees doing things like this. L

Huw - I love this website and all you do for us (FOR FREE) and for the community writ large. I’m appalled at how much bizarre Negativity is routinely thrown your way in the comments section.

Just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and thank you for everything you do for us!

@Huw said:
"The main story here is not whether it can be taken apart or not, but that LEGO felt the need to create a video to show how to do it, which is unprecedented. "

TLG only had to come up with a video because Brickset wrote an alarmist article without checking with the source first. Solutions were posted by AFOL’s online as soon as this “problem” was identified.

I love this site and appreciate all the effort that goes into it. I also know it is not a newspaper so it doesn’t need to follow journalism standards (not that actual journalists always do), but it would be great to see higher professional standards in the AFOL community. There’s a reason why StoneWars is my favourite Lego news source: they are the closest to actual journalists when writing their articles, e.g. talking to copyright lawyers when writing about the very German topic of clone brands.

^^ @MrKoshka Yes, this bears repeating...
@Huw At the end of the day, I'm very glad for the (heated) discussion that resulted from the original article - I had fun reading the comments, and participating, too! =oD You are a pretty tough hombre to run this site so successfully, and I'm thankful for that. Please know that your efforts behind the scenes never go unnoticed - this is a great place.

Damn, the casual toxicity and immature dismissiveness in these comments are a good reminder why I don't interact with the community all that much.

Nice that Lego have taken the time to respond and put together the tutorial. But also something that should be unnecessary.
I've just taken on the challenge with some nice new parts and there is no amount of moving, wiggling, jiggling that I can apply to get the axle out of this assembly. even with far more than @TheJANG applied. There is just not enough movement available to get the stop to protrude enough to get any purchase, with nails or tools. In the end, I hand to use a very fine bladed knife (being the only tool that would work) to carefully prise out the axle using the gap between the stop and the hole in the frame. Fortunately, no damage done.
I don't see any way a typical or casual builder is going to be able to get this apart unless the parts tolerances are looser on their particular parts.

@alegrispa said:
"Damn, the casual toxicity and immature dismissiveness in these comments are a good reminder why I don't interact with the community all that much."

So you piling on in the original article where there was no effort to get a reaction from TLG, and where people managed to come up with solutions on the very same day, with “Sad to see what this company has become.”: completely normal and not toxic at all in your mind.

People feeling vindicated this is the nothingburger they originally thought it was (although their is feedback in the comments from people, incl from Huw and Jang, that they are still struggling with disassembling this, so there’s at least “something”): “Oh no, such toxic behaviour from this community!”

OK then.

Yes, thank you Huw, and all the team at BRICKSET. Great site, great reviews, great articles. This was an interesting one and obviously concerning enough to Lego to garner the response it did, so well done.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @stlux said:
" I love this site and appreciate all the effort that goes into it. I also know it is not a newspaper so it doesn’t need to follow journalism standards (not that actual journalists always do), but it would be great to see higher professional standards in the AFOL community. There’s a reason why StoneWars is my favourite Lego news source: they are the closest to actual journalists when writing their articles, e.g. talking to copyright lawyers when writing about the very German topic of clone brands."

With regard to journalistic standards, there are Brickset articles which might benefit from external comment, usually from LEGO. Unfortunately, LEGO is often rather slow in issuing such comments, especially ones supposed to satisfy the AFOL community. Awaiting official comments before publication is therefore impractical, in many cases.

For example, those selected to review the Marvel mechs were advised of their cancellation or delay at the beginning of December. Several outlets requested official comment from LEGO, recognising that publishing the incomplete information we received may cause unnecessary confusion or frustration. Several days later, one Fan Media outlet presumably tired of waiting and published the information."

Hi Chris, I completely understand this is not easy, especially when it comes to the topic of Lego where
a) TLG is not not always very forthcoming with providing information, possibly due to them being a private company (edit: and the relevant team being too small as you call out)
b) There’s no alternative information source available

That doesn’t take away from the fact that prior to publishing the original article, there had not even been attempt to reach out to TLG or one of the designers. (Some of whom are very active on e.g. Twitter and are happy to share things as long as it doesn’t relate to future release or proprietary information) Vice might have sinned by not crediting Brickset for their article, but they did reach out to TLG. (And did get a response!)

The article also immediately jumped to a worst case scenario conclusion. It could have instead have been caveated by writing something like “I have not been able to disassemble this, do you have the same experience/do you see a solution?” And highlighting that you are pending a response from TLG.
That would have generated a very different response from readers. (Although I’m sure we would have had the same “TLG has gone to hell!” responses from the usual suspects.)

The article about the Marvel mechs also doesn’t contain all of the information, simply because TLG didn’t make it available as you rightly highlight. However that is properly called out in the article, and the speculation about the root cause isn’t “TLG has done something horrible like they have never done before”, but a levelheaded look at what might be the issue, without jumping to conclusions.

@theJANG:
No amount of hand-washing will keep the parts 100% free of skin oils. You constantly excrete trace amounts of oil through your skin, which is what fingerprints are made of. Only wearing medical-style gloves can keep the parts oil-free, but they reduce both tactile sensitivity and finger dexterity, not to mention the fact that you can always pinch the glove material between two pieces.

Even if you don’t wash your hands for days, the amount of oil excreted is so minimal, and transfers so easily to anything you touch, that it’s not like the parts would be dripping with oil after you build it. Dirt smudges are a lot more likely at that point, though.

Also, certain parts are visibly damaged by being assembled even once, however briefly. Take a new 1x1 square plate in an opaque color right out of the bag and look at the bottom. Now take another from the same bag and attach it to a stud, remove it, and compare the bottom to the first plate. You should see four dents in the center of each inner bottom edge of the second plate, where the first plate should still have sharp, clean edges.

In terms of how easily someone can pull this off, I suspect it’s like whistling. Once you’ve got the trick down, you can do it without thinking, but until you do, it’s hard to understand what you’re doing wrong. In this case, it appears you need considerable hand strength to pull it off easily. Think of all the times you’ve got a handshake from someone with a grip like a bench vise. They might have an easy time of it. Length of fingernail is also a critical factor. I often try to clip mine about a week before a show, because a week’s growth seems to be the right amount to allow me to hook tiles and cheese wedges loose with a fingernail, without needing to hunt down a brick separator. Much longer, and a day of prying parts loose will often result in a cracked nail. This might require nails that are a bit longer, and both thickness and curvature of the nail are going to affect how easily you can wedge it into the resulting gap between the flange and the frame.

@stlux:
Most of those solutions were of the, “build it this way so disassembly isn’t an issue,” variety. Most of the ones that involved actually disassembling this particular structure relied on metal tools for purchase on the axle. Not only does The LEGO Company never advise use of metal tools to disassemble their plastic bricks, but they reportedly made the Type II brick separator out of a softer plastic so it would incur any damage rather than causing it to other parts.

@CapnRex101:
Indeed, they’ve actually reduced the size of their fan interaction team. We used to have someone who would interface with major conventions, and Kevin Hinkle has just trained his replacement when the entire department was dissolved. All we ever heard about it was that they felt they needed to shift attention away from North America, and concentrate it on China and SE Asia. Look at the LCP program, and you see the same shift, as a group that was once almost entirely located in the US now only has one remaining US member, and about half of the worldwide membership is based out of SE Asia.

Just like it's important to critic TLG, it's important to critic AFOL community, so "just don't read it and move on" is not a valid comment, just like saying "just don't get this set" is not. It's important to point out that this issue got a bit over blown, so we would avoid turning into "the boy who cried wolf".

No one here or on any of the other news items about it explained why it matters in a real-life scenario. Not "out of principle" scenario. Why does it matter that you can't take this micro build apart or struggle more to do so. For this specific set, for this specific age group.

This is a "first time set" for Lego, with it being so large, heavy, and yet have moveable joints. Maybe they had to resort to this in order to support it better. This was not a "City" line set for kids. I wonder how many of you will actually take it apart? And from those, how many will be truly upset about this micro build?

It just felt like people were trying to force this to be something that it's not, that's all.