The G1 Classicsverse Checklist thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

Fixed for all except Air Raid and Skydive -- I've counted their repurposed Legends figure under Generation 2 (1995).


Fix'd. :)



Hence the "True" Classicsverse & "Faux" Classicsverse categories -- if people want to get picky and overlook repaints from other toylines that have been repainted and chucked into Classicsverse as opposed to those that have been purpose-designed for Classicsverse, then they should be focusing on the "True" Classicsverse figures marked with [+] (or their repaints marked with [+]).

Anything marked with [/] are "Faux" (false) Classicsverse; i.e. non-Classicsverse moulds that have been repainted and thrown into the Classicsverse line by Hasbro. These toys may be widely considered to be not 'real' Classicsverse toys by many collectors and only really count because of Hasbro marketing, but otherwise don't really feel like they belong in the Classicsverse line.



Trying to 'count' anything is jolly hard because everyone has a different opinion on what should and shouldn't count. And unlike the Universal Counting Method for toys, I am NOT even going to try to come up with a general consensus for what toys should and shouldn't count for Classicsverse. I've tried to include every character who's ever had a toy incarnation that HasTak have marketed under CHUGGURT as well as those which they haven't but their marketing or history lends some ambiguity that there might be a case to argue for them to count (see TF2010 and ROTF Bludgeon discussion below).

I've tried to point out which ones are toys that are purpose-made for Classicsverse, which ones aren't, which are repaints of what and so forth and people can just decide for themselves which ones they want to count or not. :cool:


Go to brick and mortar stores and look on shelves. ;) Looking at other people's collections is a good suggestion... try before you buy. :) Maybe arrange for 'show and tell' at fan meets :D


I've tried to eliminate fan bias as much as possible - that's why I'm not including arbitrary "stand ins" (i.e. non-Classicsverse toys that people personally decide to repurpose as Classicsverse, e.g. Music Label Soundwave as Classicsverse G1 1984 Soundwave, Movieverse Axor as Classicsverse Axer etc.).

Anything that's listed as having a Classicsverse toy is there because they have a toy which HasTak have explicitly marketed as Classics/Timelines/Henkei/Gentei/Universe/Generations/United/Reveal The Shield or other similar lines that are part of what we call "Classicsverse". There are some which are ambiguous, particularly those from Hasbro's label-less Transformers 2010 line, and others like ROTF Bludgeon who was ultimately a ROTF toy but at one stage was considered by Hasbro to be a Classicsverse toy (thus some fans might argue "prior intent"). And even there I've labelled with with [?] to denote the ambiguous or debatable nature of their classification as Classicsverse.

Any toy with [+] or [+] are definitely Classicsverse. Can't go wrong with those IMO. :) Okay, I've now redefined the rare figures...
[R] = bloody rare "True" Classicsverse moulds, e.g. United Frumble (original mould made for Classicsverse)
[R] = bloody rare "True" Classicsverse repaints, e.g. Shattered Glass Thundercracker (repaint of Classics Starscream mould)
[r] = bloody rare "Faux" Classicsverse repaints, e.g. Timelines Double Punch (repaint of Energon Scorponok)

---

It's still a biased list, man. It can't help but be. Saying it's not just isn't correct, not when you list your own reasons for eliminating toys that seem dubious compared to other inclusions at best. (RTS counts, yet Grapple, Sea Spray, Bludgeon, etc don't? Despite clear evidence of what Bludgeon was conceived at, and that generally, Generations didn't have Voyagers, hence they were put where they could).

Bias is bias. It's impossible to not have bias in this list, but just admit it, don't deny it then contradict your own statement in the next paragraph, there's nothing wrong with admitting the list has the natural bias of the author, that's just natural.

Didn't this whole exercise start from a post trying to narrow down the options for an upcoming Botcon mold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffin

I guess it means we will be seeing a fair few of the Reveal-the-Shield and early wave Generations toys next year.

So based on their hints "Three of the characters are getting their first updates ever" and "Two of the figures draw upon the "distant past" ", I wonder who they could be hinting at.
The first hint sounds like Gen1 characters from the first couple years of the toyline (1984-1986) that haven't been done in Classicverse yet, which there aren't too many left now.
While the second hint may refer to "War Dawn" type characters... like Orion Pax, Dion (again) and Ariel.

Is there a list somewhere that checks off the first 3 years of TFs toys done in the Classicverse line? (to help narrow down the list of potentials)

---

Maybe we should be using the criteria from the hints - did the reps say it was specifically Classicsverse? I would have assumed Seaspray and Grapple/Grappel would have come under 'updates' for guessing game purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liegeprime

hmmmm, doesnt kup have that toy? or Im just imagining it, mebbe we could ask him to post some pics there...

---

Yep I have both the Club and G1. I will take pictures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

It's still a biased list, man. It can't help but be.

---

Well I did say that I've tried to eliminate (perhaps "minimise" is a gooderer word) bias, but of course it cannot be completely removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

Saying it's not just isn't correct, not when you list your own reasons for eliminating toys that seem dubious compared to other inclusions at best. (RTS counts, yet Grapple, Sea Spray, Bludgeon, etc don't? Despite clear evidence of what Bludgeon was conceived at, and that generally, Generations didn't have Voyagers, hence they were put where they could).

---

Grappel counts.

Sea Spray is dubious because his packaging is devoid of any series indicator, and also (from TFwiki):

Quote:

---

At Toy Fair 2010 and in the March 2010 answers to tfwiki.net's questions in Hasbro Q&A, Hasbro representatives were adamant that Sea Spray is the same character as Generation 1 Seaspray, being a Classics-style upgrade of the Mini Vehicle placed in the adjectiveless 2010 Transformers toyline because they felt he should be a Voyager and Generations was only Deluxes. His packaging bio, however, places him versus live-action-styled guys who seemingly operate in the live-action-style universe and Sea Spray is included in the Unite for the Universe comic. But, in December 2010's Q&A, Hasbro stated that "Seaspray" and some other 2010 yellow-carded toys "do not exist in the movie world". Should these comments by Hasbro be filed under authorial intent?

---

Technically Sea Spray IS a movieverse toy, and not Classicsverse; I personally display him on my movieverse Autobots shelves, not on my Classicsverse Autobots shelves -- but I can see how other people might argue that he could be a Classicsverse toy. Basically the [?] category is a "technical no" but there could be a valid reason to argue to the contrary under authorial intent.

Bludgeon is also classed as [?] debatable -- but he's probably even more dubious because unlike Sea Spray whose mould was originally intended to be Classicsverse, Bludgeon was originally intended for the Unicron Trilogy line, but then later reconsidered for Classicsverse, but then reconsidered for Revenge of the Fallen which is where he finally fell. So technically that toy is movieverse and not Classicsverse, but again one could pitch the authorial intent argument...
From TFwiki...

Quote:

---

The origin of Voyager class Bludgeon is older than one may expect. Artist Don Figueroa submitted a concept for a Unicron Trilogy Bludgeon toy that looked very similar to the final product way back during the development of the Energon or Cybertron toylines. Obviously, the concept wasn't put into production as a toy at the time, so Figueroa used it as inspiration for his IDW Publishing Stormbringer rendition of Generation 1 Bludgeon. However, Hasbro evidently resurrected the concept for the Universe (as mentioned by Hasbro at BotCon 2009) and then the Revenge of the Fallen lines. Figueroa notes that his contribution on this toy is very small, as his work on it ended when he submitted the concept to Hasbro way back when.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

Bias is bias. It's impossible to not have bias in this list, but just admit it, don't deny it then contradict your own statement in the next paragraph, there's nothing wrong with admitting the list has the natural bias of the author, that's just natural.

---

I'm not including or excluding these toys based on my personal bias.

My personal bias is actually based on what the toys officially are classed as. If I completely allowed my personal bias to dictate this list, I would classify most of the toys in the debatable category as a clear [-] no. To me, Sea Spray and ROTF Bludgeon are definitively Movieverse... I display both toys on my movieverse shelves and I play with them in movieverse -- I've never mixed them up with my Classicsverse toys. As Verno might tell you, I'm pretty dogmatic when it comes to only following official canon. I personally don't give a flying rat's tail about authorial intent... if official canon says that these toys exist in the movie universe, then that IS where they exist to me. Authorial intent can go jump off a space bridge for all I care... the ONLY way I would personally accept these toys existing in Classicsverse is if there were an official retcon. That's why I personally don't enjoy reading fan fics, because most of them contradict official canon which I personally dislike (not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not my cup of Energon).

So the fact that I have allowed the "[?] debatable" category to even exist and classified toys like Sea Spray and Bludgeon into this category is actually me letting go of my normally super-anal dogmatic slavish retention to official canon! :D It actually goes against every fibre of my being... when I classified those toys as "debatable" my inner nerd raged and I had to spray him down with a garden hose. :p :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

Didn't this whole exercise start from a post trying to narrow down the options for an upcoming Botcon mold?

---

That's why I made a separate thread so that we wouldn't derail the original thread. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

Maybe we should be using the criteria from the hints - did the reps say it was specifically Classicsverse? I would have assumed Seaspray and Grapple/Grappel would have come under 'updates' for guessing game purposes.

---

Grapple/Grappel is Classicsverse. The list classifies him as "[+] Yes", so I'm not sure why he's being disputed. Although I might re-classify him as "[+] Yes" because he is a repaint/retool of Inferno (a fairly extensive retool though)... anyway, he counts!

With Sea Spray (not to be confused with Seaspray!) and Bludgeon, the reps have said different things at different times -- but the latest word is that they are movieverse - hence they are officially/technically classified as so. However some people prefer to go back to earlier citations from Hasbro which contradict their latest ruling... but really, the latest ruling should be the most authoritative (rendering previous rulings obsolete). I'm trying not to let my bias interfere with the list, hence why the [?] debatable category exists. And it is a debatable category - hence why it's marked with a question mark. If you don't want to count them (like me), then just don't count them! But I'd like to leave the option open for other people who may prefer to side with authorial intent and count them.

What I would prefer is if you guys would let me know if I'm being inconsistent in any of my classifications. Bias or no, I'd like to at least keep all rulings and classifications of these toys consistent. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

Didn't this whole exercise start from a post trying to narrow down the options for an upcoming Botcon mold? Maybe we should be using the criteria from the hints - did the reps say it was specifically Classicsverse? I would have assumed Seaspray and Grapple/Grappel would have come under 'updates' for guessing game purposes.

---

That's exactly what I was thinking. It isn't about what series or packaging a particular toy ended up in, but if we are getting a toy with "their first updates ever. Seaspray and Bludgeon are clearly an update of their Gen1 versions, reguardless of what universe or packaging they ended up in. Just like Crankcase, "Getaway" (Breakaway), Big Daddy, Jolt and "Erector" (Longarm) who were released in Movie packaging in 2007-2008... if they are considered "updates", I think that's what the BotCon people are referring to - the first X character toy since Gen1.

Maybe we need more clarification from FunPub on what they consider an "update", and just keep discussing what toys people here personally consider are "updates" in their collection.

Yeah, Sea Spray and Bludgeon are surprising ommissions.

Lugnut and Drift should also be included in the list, as they are G1-verse (which is back up by fiction appearing in 'Generations', art by Guidi, script by Furman, which clearly shows both operating in G1 Classicsverse).

We've also got Bludgeon appearing in IDW in what is essentially the same form as the ROTF toy, and IIRC Sea Spray appears in early TF Ongoing issues in his new form. Again, both 'canon' fiction sources, not fan-fic.


I see far more reasons to include them then to exclude them, particularly with Sea Spray. Add to that, IIRC, there was no equivalent Voyager line for the 'Classics' figures at that time, only deluxes. This was the only way to release them.

If you can sort through RTS to work out who's G1 and who's not, it's just as easy with SeaSpray.

EDIT: And why potentially downgrade Grapple? The G1 version was retooled from Inferno (or vice versa), so is this one. No different. Plus it was given the G1 cartoon accurate paintjob by TakTom for Japan, same as all the other Classicsverse figures at that time, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

Yeah, Sea Spray and Bludgeon are surprising ommissions.

---

They're neither omitted nor included... that [?] category simply means it's open to debate because there are valid reasons to include or exclude them and I'm trying to avoid taking either side on that list. If I wanted to omit them they would be classified as [-].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

Lugnut and Drift should also be included in the list, as they are G1-verse (which is back up by fiction appearing in 'Generations', art by Guidi, script by Furman, which clearly shows both operating in G1 Classicsverse).

---

Lugnut I would place under Animated if the list extends as far as that (atm it just covers G1 and G2). As for Drift... he's not really a Classicsverse "upgrade" of any pre-existing toy (except maybe G1 Downshift... okay, I was kidding with that :p).

Later on I'll probably include a special list of Classicsverse characters who are the first toy realisations of previously canon-exclusive characters, like Drift and Darkmount. But neither Lugnut or Drift are updates of any toys released between 1984-95.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

We've also got Bludgeon appearing in IDW in what is essentially the same form as the ROTF toy,

---

The toy that eventually became ROTF Bludgeon was the inspiration for IDW's design of Bludgeon in Stormbringer, but it's not exactly the same.
Pics for comparison:
IDW Neo-G1 Bludgeon
Movieverse Bludgeon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

and IIRC Sea Spray appears in early TF Ongoing issues in his new form. Again, both 'canon' fiction sources, not fan-fic.

---

Even Hasbro can't seem to decide if Sea Spray is meant to be movieverse or Neo G1... from TFwiki:

Quote:

---

The Sea Spray character from the 2010 toyline was apparently intended to be this Seaspray, according to a Hasbro Q&A at the time. However, his bio and fictional appearances are rather at odds with this, portraying him alongside live-action film-style characters. As of November 2010, Hasbro maintains he is NOT a movie-verse character, so... well you can decide for yourself if he really belongs (in G1) instead.

---

...so we have conflicting canonical sources and comments from Hasbro... it's all too confusing, so just decide for yourself. To me he's Movieverse, but I can just as easily understand why others would classify him as Classicsverse. Until there's some kind of official retcon that conclusively places Sea Spray in either Neo-G1 or Movie universe, there will probably never be a definitive answer to what universe he belongs in ... unless you want to completely disregard canon/marketing and look purely at them as "toy updates."

But even then it might be ambiguous with some characters, because I could argue that:
+ the first toy update of Grimlock after 1995 was Beast Wars Grimlock (the repaint and retool of Dinobot)
+ Beast Wars Metals X-9 Jaguar (extremely extensive retool of Transmetal Cheetor) was the first toy update of G1 Ravage.
+ Magnaboss was the first toy update of G1 Ironhide, Prowl and Silverbolt
+ Brave Maximus is a toy update of Fortress Maximus (since in RiD the character had the same name)
+ Convobat is the first post-G2 toy update of Optimus Prime, heck one could also argue that Optimus Primal was the first toy update of Optimus Prime considering that prior to the BW cartoon he was originally intended to be Optimus Prime (again, authorial intent).
I guess one might have to draw a cut-off point as to how recent a toy should be to be classified as an update... which would be biased/subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

I see far more reasons to include them then to exclude them, particularly with Sea Spray. Add to that, IIRC, there was no equivalent Voyager line for the 'Classics' figures at that time, only deluxes. This was the only way to release them.

---

I personally see more reasons to exclude them than include them... but see, that's just my personal biased opinion, just as your conclusion is based on your opinion. Objectively neither of us are right or wrong -- there exists evidence to support both our views... so I think it's best just to leave them as [?] and let people individually decide whether or not to include them for themselves. The [?] category does NOT conclusively include nor exclude any toy from Classicsverse... it's just saying that it's open to debate, so it's really up to your personal opinion as to whether or not you want to count them.

If you consider Sea Spray to be Classicsverse, then he counts. If you don't, then he doesn't count. Simple as that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

If you can sort through RTS to work out who's G1 and who's not, it's just as easy with SeaSpray.

---

Only that, AFAIK, Grappel doesn't have any conflicting evidence that could rule him out of being in Neo-G1. Grappel doesn't have canonical material that places him in the movie universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

EDIT: And why potentially downgrade Grapple? The G1 version was retooled from Inferno (or vice versa), so is this one. No different. Plus it was given the G1 cartoon accurate paintjob by TakTom for Japan, same as all the other Classicsverse figures at that time, really.

---

It's okay, he won't be downgraded. The [+] category is supposed to be for "repaints of "true" Classicsverse moulds where it's debatable over how well they work as that new character" like Classics Cliffjumper (cos red Bumblebee =/= Cliffjumper damnit!!). Grappel/United Grapple totally work as Grapple, so he'll stay in the [+] category. :)

I do count SeaSpray, yes, so does Hasbro, and so would a LOT of potential newbies reading this list.

Yes, this is the bias comes from, from every person (obviously myself included), but for SeaSpray, we have Word Of God from Hasbro, and IDW G1 appearances.

It's the same character.

If you're not counting him, then we should get rid of Ratchet and Ironhide, who don't look much like THEIR original toys either...

Lugnut and Drift also have the Generations manga that was commissioned by TakTom. This firmly places Drift and Lugnut in Classicsverse, along with Grapple, etc.

Opinion is one thing, but you're ignoring multiple canonical sources here, along with what the wishes of the average collector would be:- to know that that SeaSpray exists, and is there as a viable upgrade for G1 SeaSpray, ala Powerglide, and is intended as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat

I do count SeaSpray, yes, so does Hasbro, and so would a LOT of potential newbies reading this list.

Yes, this is the bias comes from, from every person (obviously myself included), but for SeaSpray, we have Word Of God from Hasbro, and IDW G1 appearances.

It's the same character.

If you're not counting him, then we should get rid of Ratchet and Ironhide, who don't look much like THEIR original toys either...

Lugnut and Drift also have the Generations manga that was commissioned by TakTom. This firmly places Drift and Lugnut in Classicsverse, along with Grapple, etc.

Opinion is one thing, but you're ignoring multiple canonical sources here, along with what the wishes of the average collector would be:- to know that that SeaSpray exists, and is there as a viable upgrade for G1 SeaSpray, ala Powerglide, and is intended as such.

---

I personally don't like Seaspray so I don't have him and don't consider him a part of Classics..but that's just my take.

As I mentioned before, I don't think this list is a mandatory rule set that everyone needs to follow, just a loose guideline anyone can feel free to use.

If you don't agree with it, don't follow it; it doesn't mean that you are wrong and that the list is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime

(from here)



[-] Swerve = No :(

---

Swerve has been updated into the classicverse, just into a radically different form.
http://www.tfu.info/2008/Autobot/Swerve/swerve.htm