@lordofdragonss said:
"Nah its all about minifigures nowadays. I understand it but also despise it."

Humor is not good when you resort to it just to not examine or challenge your own point of view. That keeps the mind from growing, keeps it stagnating and incomplete.

I have pretty much all the mechs from the past 2 years and there is lots of stability issues with those as well. The Miles Morales mech doesn't wanna stand, it's very loose and just tips over all the time. And it's not the only set that has this issue. The ball joint connection is quite weak and it's a major design flaw in my opinion. Hope this next batch fixes it in a good way.

@tielenaar said:
"I have pretty much all the mechs from the past 2 years and there is lots of stability issues with those as well. The Miles Morales mech doesn't wanna stand, it's very loose and just tips over all the time. And it's not the only set that has this issue. The ball joint connection is quite weak and it's a major design flaw in my opinion. Hope this next batch fixes it in a good way."

Really? Mine have all been excellent - I've only got 76140, 76141 and 76168, but they're rock solid.

@MisterBrickster said:
" @tielenaar said:
"I have pretty much all the mechs from the past 2 years and there is lots of stability issues with those as well. The Miles Morales mech doesn't wanna stand, it's very loose and just tips over all the time. And it's not the only set that has this issue. The ball joint connection is quite weak and it's a major design flaw in my opinion. Hope this next batch fixes it in a good way."

Really? Mine have all been excellent - I've only got 76140, 76141 and 76168, but they're rock solid."

I've found there are 2 slightly different versions of the 3-ball part. There are 2 part numbers for it, too: 15460 & 67325, bothe part numbers currently aviable from Lego BnP. One has more friction than the other, plus a slightly more textured surface. The higher friction one is fine for these small mechs, the other is not. For the original purpose for technic steering, the low-friction one is better.

@tielenaar if you've got this sort of problem with a set, contact Lego customer service and replacement parts are likely to be forthcoming.

@Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"I assume they already have all the official images and box art ready and will just go with it, even if they have solved the design issue. I doubt most buyers would notice a minor design change.
"
And it wouldn’t be the first time this year that a Marvel set had slightly different box art from what you actually get. 76205 Gargantos Showdown does too."
And not exactly a new situation for Lego in general. Legoland sets of the 70s often had boxes which didn't quite match the bricks, which didn't quite match the instructions!

I just noticed today, but going back at least to early 2021 the 3.2 shaft with ball joint part has started being made with an awful new softer plastic, feels the same as the plastic that ruined the exo-force robot hands from (no later than) 2019 onwards. The part has way, *way* less friction now than the original ABS variant of the part. No doubt this is the reason the legs were weaker than expected. While marvels sets have clearly had a lot of issues recently, I dont think we can blame the designers for this particular issue. The design works perfectly fine with the slightly older, higher quality version of the part, so there's every chance it was simply tested with the older version of the part. Its only due to a subtle and recent change that tanked the quality of the part that it stopped working.

Remembering a brickset article from last year about how Lego supposedly actually reads feedback surveys, I've already filled one out to complain about this plastic change (I used 80012 as the set for the feedback, since thats the earliest set I can find this issue in), but I'd recommend others to do the same.

I am exceedingly annoyed with this change. Since there's no reasonable way for bricklink sellers to distinguish them, there may not be a reliable way for me to get more of the old, higher quality version. And much like these mechs, many of my MOCs are not stable with this new version of the part, and its a part I like and use a great deal.

**EDIT** Ok the old version has a different element ID (22484) that's up on B&P separately. Not sure if I want to order a bunch of them to see if I get the old version, especially since I literally just made a B&P order today, but I also dont want to miss out forever on the good version of a part that's really essential to me. I can say for sure that last time I bought this part on B&P, I definitely bought the new version and got the new version. Whether buying the old would get me the old, though, would be a time-consuming thing to test

I'm buying the Wolverine one and I believe there is now Ant man & Wasp Mechs too..

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
" @MisterBrickster said:
" @tielenaar said:
"I have pretty much all the mechs from the past 2 years and there is lots of stability issues with those as well. The Miles Morales mech doesn't wanna stand, it's very loose and just tips over all the time. And it's not the only set that has this issue. The ball joint connection is quite weak and it's a major design flaw in my opinion. Hope this next batch fixes it in a good way."

Really? Mine have all been excellent - I've only got 76140, 76141 and 76168, but they're rock solid."

I've found there are 2 slightly different versions of the 3-ball part. There are 2 part numbers for it, too: 15460 & 67325, bothe part numbers currently aviable from Lego BnP. One has more friction than the other, plus a slightly more textured surface. The higher friction one is fine for these small mechs, the other is not. For the original purpose for technic steering, the low-friction one is better.

@tielenaar if you've got this sort of problem with a set, contact Lego customer service and replacement parts are likely to be forthcoming."

Easier to use a bit of sand paper or something to make it rough ;) (blasphemy, I know!) They're just my son's, he doesn't care too much.

The Captain America one we have is also quite weak, but Thor and Iron man seem fine.

While this is great news, I am concerned about LEGO's design quality as of recent times. It is becoming far too common for LEGO sets to be delayed or cancelled because of "quality issues", like 40489 Christmas GWP set, and (even though it hasn't been delayed or recalled) 76205 Gargantos Showdown also has a design flaw. My question for these sets is: Why change the leg attachment point at all? The previous design used for the past 2 years of mechs was perfectly fine.

@Yorick said:
" @Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"I assume they already have all the official images and box art ready and will just go with it, even if they have solved the design issue. I doubt most buyers would notice a minor design change.
"
And it wouldn’t be the first time this year that a Marvel set had slightly different box art from what you actually get. 76205 Gargantos Showdown does too.

"

What's the difference, I don't have the set yet and am curious"
The 2 x 2 round boat slide that is the iris (https://brickset.com/parts/design-87529)
has red printing on the box art, instructions and parts list. But in LEGO’s own marketing pictures, fan media reviews (including Brickset’s: https://brickset.com/article/68316/review-76205-gargantos-showdown) and my copy, it doesn’t. The black and white pupil is printed fine, so no difference there; it’s just the iris.

Really cool set by the way. I recommend it.

Yeah! I just want that new Iron Man to add to the stable.

@lost_scotsman said:
"The Black Panther one shows how they are changing up the leg connection, using the bar with the ball end 6364352 : 3.2 SHAFT W/ 5.9 BALL in a 4632575 : LAMP HOLDER, rather than the technic piece with the three balls 6359227 : BEAM 1 MODULE W/ 3 BALLS, DIA. 5,9. I find with this former method the shafts can stick from friction, so maybe they are having to back to the old design?"

The Black Panther one shows how they have not modified the leg connection since these sets were revealed. The lamp holder/bar-ball connection is what caused the stability issue https://brickset.com/article/67930/marvel-mechs-delayed-or-cancelled

As mentioned in that original discussion, it's likely that the torso-shell pieces from Nexo Knights were no longer in circulation, so a redesign was needed since that is what the three-ball piece connected to

Delay a Mech, bring back 3 mechs

A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Can't wait to finally get a Wolverine minifig.

@VBaskin2010 said:
"Tell me this is a April Fools joke!"

It’s an April Fools joke.
An early, January edition.

@MisterBrickster said:
" @LegoSonicBoy said:
" @Terreneflame said:
"I am very confused- these sets were delayed because of a design flaw.
They said they were delayed because of a design flaw.

There was literally no Morality mentioned about these at all, so why post continuously this rant?"
I'm guessing they're protesting the closure of comments on the Overwatch 2 set update."

He's what passes for a conspiracy theorist around here. Wooo fake morals, evil company, we know the Truth and all that. I can only assume it gives the TLG employees who read Brickset comments a good laugh while they try and figure out which one of them is the evil puppetmaster."

There are two imposters among us.
*ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding, ding ding ding*

It is a moral issue when Lego claims all their sets have been built in real life, and all of their other mottos.
Especially with a 10$ build that is very derivative of sets currently in stores they have no excuse. This isn't a UCS AT-AT they have to build.
Even if a designer is working from home, just send him last years set and he changes out parts with his supply or own collection. That supposes that the designers own Lego at all, I guess which is apparently plain unreasonable?
And at least half a dozen different people work on the physical part of the product, are they really unable to notice? That's unbelievably lazy.

They had to put effort into not realizing that the parts do not assemble to their standards. And this laziness goes across the board, not just construction but also product selection and the creative design aspects.

Like the UCS AT-AT issue would have been acknowledged better at any earlier point in time. The current method is as people pointed out not possible for everyone and work at random.
Any time one points out ways in which the products are crippled it is always excused, as if this isn't something that dozens of people work who have the chance to do something great and then get careless in other, very important areas. Now they even physically cripple their models regularly at horrendous prices and people still are just okay with this.

And instead of just staying with the topic commenters here veer of and want to make it personal and break the discussion, because they are unable to just consider for a moment the point of view of someone else and understand what they mean, which is really the most childish behavior.

@Anonym

I file complaints about sets like this under a different bin than complaints about sets that got released. The community pointing out flaws that didn't get addressed before the set hit shelves is not (I repeat, not) the same as Lego themselves pulling a set before it gets released. I'm sure most of us are aware of the story where Ole Kirk demanded that the ducks were brought back for a second coat of paint. That's what happened here. Would it have been ideal if this was caught during the design process, before moving closer to release? Sure. But the issue was caught before release, and thus this is clearly not a moral issue. You can't realistically say that *this* is an example of Lego straying from "only the best is good enough."

Considering Brick Bank has a tan official picture and the real set is white, I wouldn't be too concerned if images are the same even if the set is different.

I have zero interest in mechs proper, but I love the figures they include with them so still end up buying them. So I don't care how stable they are (they all get parted out), but I know kids love these things so I guess I'll allow the changes for the target audience ;).

@Zander:
The 76205 box art is correct. The part image is not. The actual part is trans-orange with blood vessels printed in a shade of red that’s so similar that it’s easy to miss that they’re there (but they are). The part list appears to show the part molded in trans-yellow. Remove the iris and hold it up to the light. You should be able to see darker lines located between the studs to prove that they really did print all three colors. In the main box art, you can see these same lines in the upper left corner over the stud of the iris, and one line each centered between both the two studs on the left and the two studs on the bottom, proving they depicted the part with three colors printed.

The problem seems to be due to the instructions. The iris and a 2x2 round dish used for the magical hand effects is trans-orange in the set, but they’re much less saturated in the instructions, both in the steps and the parts list. But you are technically correct. The box art does show one odd difference with the instructions. In the box art, both Strange and Wong have a single trans-orange effect in one hand. In the instructions, Strange has two in trans-orange, while Wong gets two in trans-dark-pink. These are not shown anywhere on the box. There’s also the missing Pride tile, shown in both the steps and parts list.

@fakespacesquid:
WW84 and Black Widow each got a delayed release date, but the sets were already released before those announcements came down. Minions was due to be released right around the time the first delay happened, so the giant Minions and Gru’s motorcycle got released on schedule, while everything else (including two Brickheadz sets, the Bob polybag, and the blister pack, none of which we’d heard of in early 2020) all came out a year later. I don’t remember the timing of that vs the delay to this summer, but these sets were also tying up element slots, so they may have decided they just needed to push them out the door, movie or no movie. Not releasing with a movie probably negatively impacted sales on these sets, and I’m wondering if they’ll bring them all back, design new sets to replace them, or just let the movie slide through with absolutely no product left on store shelves.

Whether a set gets delayed when the license tie-in gets pushed back is very much dependent on the timing. Sets that have shipped can’t exactly un-ship. Sets that are already entering production may have a Point Of No Return. If you’re actually setting up the first part run, they may still shut down production until later, especially if the parts can be used in other sets. If the parts are just waiting to be boxed up, they’d tie up a lot of valuable space if they decide to sit on them for a year or more (though, again, many of those parts could be used up by other sets).

Now, I haven’t even opened the article about the Overwatch set, so I don’t know anything about what people have been speculating there, and I’m not suggesting I know why that specific set was delayed. I’m just saying every situation is unique, and when you have to schedule production weeks or even months in advance, some information may arrive too late to adjust your plans.

@Anonym:
Did they ever explicitly state that they have physically built a copy of every set they’ve released? Did they ever state that this remained the case during the pandemic, especially during lockdowns that forced many of them to work remotely? I feel like this is one of those “facts” that spring from collective assumption combined with the fact that, under normal circumstances, it only makes sense that a physical copy would be built (if for no other reason than that they need to show them to corporate buyers at various Toy Fairs).

@CCC said:
"I assume they already have all the official images and box art ready and will just go with it, even if they have solved the design issue. I doubt most buyers would notice a minor design change.
"

as someone who enjoys building small sets by only looking at the box art, i know i will notice