Which Non-Toy Characters Deserve One?

[Bartrim]

. RHs have articulation, albeit minimal, but with most having 3 points of articulation, compare it to some Gen1 toys that only had 1 or 2 - which is considered an 'action figure' then?

LOL

I've never thought about that before but thats a real good point.

[Sky Shadow]

Even though it is a tongue in cheek statemhttp://www.otca.com.au/boards/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=162214ent, any toy-figure that has articulation to be able to move (have action), would be classed as an action figure. RHs have articulation, albeit minimal, but with most having 3 points of articulation, compare it to some Gen1 toys that only had 1 or 2 - which is considered an 'action figure' then?

Going by that definition (to be able to move), what complete G1 toys have only one or two points of articulation?

[griffin]

Slightly off-topic... but maybe this is why Hasbro don't produce any human toys for the Transformers line. A higher tax rate applies to actionfigures that are human, because they are classed as 'dolls' for tax purposes. A higher tax rate would mean a higher cost for Hasbro on those specific human toys - which they could either pass on with figures of that same size-class, or absorb so that that size class price doesn't increase and cost them sales across the board.
I think in the past (Energon Kicker, Human Alliance and Robot Heroes) each human has been packaged with a non-human toy, and classed as an accessory to the cheaper taxable 'non-doll' toy.

We know from BotCon that Hasbro were keen to tap into the market's interest in Sari from Animated, but this tax rate difference (tax/tariff is double for dolls), shouldn't have affected Sari. If I remember, I might ask someone at Hasbro at BotCon about it.

[GoktimusPrime]

Yeah but a 10cm human action figure would still be relatively cheap compared to most other Transformer toys. A 10cm G.I. Joe, Marvel or Star Wars figure costs about $17ish - a bit dearer than a Scout, but still considerably cheaper than a Deluxe.

Odd... you'd think that the tax rate for Star Wars and Marvel would be cheaper for Hasbro considering that they're mostly "nonhuman" characters (Marvel characters are 'superhuman' and Star Wars are all 'aliens' - even human characters like Padmé are non-Earthlings, and Jedi could be argued to be 'superhuman').

As griffin said, Sari shouldn't be effected by the tax rate... but perhaps some other "superhuman" or "extrahuman" characters like Meltdown, Nanosec, Angry Archer, and yes, even Professor Princess, would be exempt too. But still, even if they sold for about the same price as other Hasbro 10cm action figures, I'd buy them. So did Hasbro have to pay extra tax for the small figurines that come with the Human Alliance toys?

Another option is to package the human character with a Transformer, like Hasbro's Kicker w/ Highwire. Although that would make the overall toy package more expensive and Hasbro would be inclined to cheapen the toy to reduce the cost (as I suspect they did with Kicker).

[griffin]

Going by that definition (to be able to move), what complete G1 toys have only one or two points of articulation?

Rethinking the concept of articulation as any 'moving parts' with TFs, I can see that it is possible that some would see it relating to all moving parts on the entire toy, even ones used for transformation. As such, this would pretty much mean every convertable figure has at least 5 moving parts (even Throttlebots, who have wheels, fold out arms and fold open hoods and feet).

But taking it from the view of its robot mode, which most evaluate when referring to a Tranformers toy's level of articulation, I'd see it as moveable parts of the robot, in robot mode, for the robot mode. In other words, joints used for posing, play and display.

Just had a quick look over my collection for Gen1 figures with 2 or less points of articulation for the robot in robot mode.
Even still, I'm allowing for joints that wouldn't even be used as posing joints (fold-out heads, fists and feet) due to the unuseable range of movement.

Starscream
Thundercracker
Skywarp
Huffer
Hound
Sideswipe
Blitzwing
Astrotrain
Red Alert
Ramjet
Thrust
Dirge
Mixmaster
Topspin
Twintwist
Warpath
Seaspray
Cosmos
Broadside
Groove
Streetwise
First Aid
Blades
AirRaid
Fireflight
Slingshot
Skydive
Dragstrip
Wildrider
Breakdown
Deadend
Pipes
Runabout (zero points of articulation... not even qualifying as an action figure?)
Runamuck (ditto)
6 Throttlebots (ditto)
4 small Technobots
4 small Terrorcons
Battletrap
Flywheels
Quickmix
(Grandslam)
(Raindance)
3 Sparkabots
3 Firecons
Hosehead
Powermaster Optimus Prime (as fully suited figure)
Tentakil
Nautilator
3 Triggerbots
3 Triggercons
Various Pretenders and Micromasters.

[Sky Shadow]

Rethinking the concept of articulation as any 'moving parts' with TFs, I can see that it is possible that some would see it relating to all moving parts on the entire toy, even ones used for transformation. As such, this would pretty much mean every convertable figure has at least 5 moving parts (even Throttlebots, who have wheels, fold out arms and fold open hoods and feet).

That was my point, though. It's always annoyed me when people complain about Transformers' articulation, since their very gimmick requires articulation. And additionally, when people say other toylines are more articulated, they often have fewer moving parts than the average Transformer. (And as you concur, none of the toys you've mentioned actually have fewer points of movement than Robot Heroes.)

[kup]

My definition of Action figures are fully poseable ones that can do different stances and moves - 80s examples would be GI Joe and Action Masters.

I don't really consider Most 'brick' G1 toys as Action figures and more as 'transforming toys'. Transformers did eventually become a true action figure line in late G2 due to revolutionary engineering that brought articulation but very few toys before that could be classified as such.

That's how I see it.

[Paulbot]

Darkmount needs a Scrounge (yellow repaint of Legends Cosmos?) to torture.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

+1 for a transforming Scout Dispensor.
Nancy.

Basically most of the noteworthy Animated cast we haven't seen yet, especially Animated Team Charr and Team Rodimus (I just want Cyclonus, Strika and Red Alert, but while we're at it let's get some Omega Supreme action cranking too). A Leader-class Lugnut with those fold-back missile panels he had in S1 would be awesome.

It'd be tricky IMO, but a Botanica would be sweet. And a Diagnostic Drone!

[GoktimusPrime]

That was my point, though. It's always annoyed me when people complain about Transformers' articulation, since their very gimmick requires articulation. And additionally, when people say other toylines are more articulated, they often have fewer moving parts than the average Transformer. (And as you concur, none of the toys you've mentioned actually have fewer points of movement than Robot Heroes.)

As others have said, by "articulation" people tend to be referring to poseablility of the robot mode. I think they just use the term 'articulation' because it's commonly used by action figure enthusiasts, not just TF collectors. But you're right in saying that Transformers do have a higher number of parts and articulation compared to most other toys and action figures because of the fact that they have to transform. There's also the fact that the toys have parts of two toys in one (i.e.: robot parts and alt mode parts). The lack of poseabilty did bother me as a child during G1 though. I used to look at my G.I. Joes and wish that my Transformers could be as poseable in robot mode. You can imagine my delight when poseability finally came along ... especially in Beast Wars where it became a standard feature.

Darkmount needs a Scrounge (yellow repaint of Legends Cosmos?) to torture.

His arms should be on ball-socket joints so you can pop them off.