Transformers Subscription Service 3.0 G2 Starscream Now Arriving in Mailboxes

Even better, no QC issues on mine. The wing connectors are assembled CORRECTLY!

Very cool to hear, guess I better start my patrol on ebay.

It's actually a very good deco. My wings are very loose, but otherwise seems fine.

A really nice figure to add to the g2 collection.

Sabrblade wrote:Even better, no QC issues on mine. The wing connectors are assembled CORRECTLY!

Unfortunately mine are not

LOST Cybertronian wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:Even better, no QC issues on mine. The wing connectors are assembled CORRECTLY!

Unfortunately mine are not

grimdragon2001 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:Mine came today as well.

So, uh, remember that email that stated that the QC issues Nacelle had with his wing connectors would also be on this one?

Well...

The wing connectors on mine... are assembled... CORRECTLY!

mine is correct too, though one wing is noticably droopy. sad news is, i was just transforming nacelle for a review and one of his wings broke off at the connetor, trying to fix it now

Kinda makes you glad you payed so much for them, and reassures me that I was right to not go in on thunder mayhem; imagine what would happen if the thin and brittle plastic breaks around onslaughts connector ports

Hellscream9999 wrote:Kinda makes you glad you payed so much for them, and reassures me that I was right to not go in on thunder mayhem; imagine what would happen if the thin and brittle plastic breaks around onslaughts connector ports

Whatever dude. Mine's got no misassemblies and no looseness that I can determine, and frankly with how many uses this mold has had looseness should be expected. That mine is one of the good ones should bring hope to people rather than deter it since it means that any QC issues with this one are not universal.

I get it. It's easy to complain about QC issues that occur with expensive Fun Pub figures, but really, our money isn't going into a higher degree of production quality control. It's going into premium decos produced at a much smaller, limited run. Yes, it's unfortunate when QC issues arise, but these things happen. It's the same as when they happen on a mass retail figure, only that those are less expensive for us to purchase given their large production run. If these weren't as expensive as they are would there still be as much grief about the Fun Pub toy QC issues compared to that about mass retail toy QC issues? Masterpieces are likewise expensive collector pieces with limited production runs and those have suffered some QC issues as well, yet there isn't nearly as much vitriol given towards them when MP toy QC issues arise as there are when Fun Pub toy QC issues arise.

As I said, this one is not a universally flawed figure, and none of the other TFSS 3.0 toys had any widespread QC issues to speak of besides Nacelle (whose issues were quite minor in the grand scheme of things). Why not commend something when it's done right rather than expect something to always be done wrong? That doesn't sound healthy to be honest.

Sabrblade wrote:As I said, this one is not a universally flawed figure, and none of the other TFSS 3.0 toys had any widespread QC issues to speak of besides Nacelle (whose issues were quite minor in the grand scheme of things). Why not commend something when it's done right rather than expect something to always be done wrong? That doesn't sound healthy to be honest.

Because it's what tends to happen most often, or at least, it does to me...

Unlike Sabr, I've apparently got the reversed wing-connector pieces on my figure. The wings still line up correctly in both vehicle and bot mode, though. It just takes a bit of extra force to fold them at the one join when transforming the figure. The left-hand wing, though, is a little floppy, but only along the X (left to right) axis, if that makes sense to anyone.

What I'm disappointed about, though, is the white helmet, which the prototypes and mock-ups had painted as dark gray. I understand that the original toy has those white outer parts around the head of the figure, and this white helmet is supposed to mimic that, but I think the dark gray from the mock-ups looked a lot better. The sculpted detail in the helmet makes the unpainted white plastic look "unfinished." Also, the torso is orange. Bright orange. It's not even reddish orange. The original G2 toy was NOT orange, but a kind of reddish-pink or salmon color. Check out the comparisons between the original G2 toy and the TFSS 3.0 version in the Seibertron galleries. Can someone from the TFCC post a picture of the original G2 sample they used to make the color choices for the new TFSS 3.0 version? Maybe they're seeing something I'm missing?

Otherwise, I love having this figure in my collection. I need to put together a G2 Classics shelf at some point (and pick up TFCC G2 Ramjet).

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:As I said, this one is not a universally flawed figure, and none of the other TFSS 3.0 toys had any widespread QC issues to speak of besides Nacelle (whose issues were quite minor in the grand scheme of things). Why not commend something when it's done right rather than expect something to always be done wrong? That doesn't sound healthy to be honest.

Because it's what tends to happen most often, or at least, it does to me...

Let's face it, we like to complain I'd also like to point out that parts breaking off does not necessarily reflect the quality of the plastic used. In the case of Nacelle and G2 Starscream, the wing connectors being attached backwards is a major thing, as the holes on each end are not the same size and/or shape as are the peg and rivet they attach on (the rivet is the larger of the two I believe). As such, mismatched attachment points will end in breakage, like putting a square block in a round hole.

Wolfman Jake wrote:Also, the torso is orange. Bright orange. It's not even reddish orange. The original G2 toy was NOT orange, but a kind of reddish-pink or salmon color. Check out the comparisons between the original G2 toy and the TFSS 3.0 version in the Seibertron galleries. Can someone from the TFCC post a picture of the original G2 sample they used to make the color choices for the new TFSS 3.0 version? Maybe they're seeing something I'm missing?

Late last night before the crash, I had posted some images for comparisons. The jetpack thing that makes the sounds on the original toy photographs as a more orange color than pink color, but the torso of G2 Starscream is definitely a pinkish color. I put together the following images for comparisons last night. If anyone who has both figures can confirm that I got these colors pretty close, I'd appreciate it just so we have some others confirming it. I'm OK with the orangish color that was used, but would have prefered it to have been closer to the original. However, it still looks good.





Lighting, camera settings, color adjustments in your monitor, saturation with the camera settings and in post processing (as well as your monitor), and a few other things all wreak havoc on capturing the colors of the original G2 Starscream. It's just obnoxious 90s colors that are often hard to replicate, whereas the orange used on Club G2 Starscream is much easier to photograph. If you look through the original G2 Starscream's gallery, you'll see that the colors are inconsistent throughout, though they appear much more consistent in the Club G2 Starscream's gallery.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:As I said, this one is not a universally flawed figure, and none of the other TFSS 3.0 toys had any widespread QC issues to speak of besides Nacelle (whose issues were quite minor in the grand scheme of things). Why not commend something when it's done right rather than expect something to always be done wrong? That doesn't sound healthy to be honest.

Because it's what tends to happen most often, or at least, it does to me...

Let's face it, we like to complain I'd also like to point out that parts breaking off does not necessarily reflect the quality of the plastic used. In the case of Nacelle and G2 Starscream, the wing connectors being attached backwards is a major thing, as the holes on each end are not the same size and/or shape as are the peg and rivet they attach on (the rivet is the larger of the two I believe). As such, mismatched attachment points will end in breakage, like putting a square block in a round hole.

I don't actually have any of these, I was just referring to most things in my life


But these certainly seem to be an assembly error - not that I'd put it past the new plastic, hasbro's been using, to snap; ultra magnus certainly seemed capable of it

Seibertron wrote:Late last night before the crash, I had posted some images for comparisons.

Yep, and I was most grateful for your efforts. When everything was restored after the crash, I took the opportunity to edit my post, which was the last one preserved by the Tuesday back-up, to reflect the more recent information that had come to light in the thread, but had been subsequently lost.

Glad to report that the wing connections on my G2 starscream were assembled the proper way. My nacelle connecters were on backwards and the right wing snapped. Funpub was nice enough to send me a replacement part and my friend fixed it for me. You can grind down the back end of the connectors to match the proper side they should have been facing. Once you take care of that the little plastic peg no longer gets stressed more and more after each transformation. Also you can carefully crack the glue on the legs and switch nacelles tailfins the proper way. (If you dont mind the tampo being upside down) My friend did that and now nacelle is good to go.

Upon further inspection, my Starscream is completely fubar'd.

Not only are the wing hinges installed wrong, one of the hinges are installed too far forward which wont let the wing come flush with the body at all.



Which caused a massive stress mark in the shaft where the pin goes in

LOST Cybertronian wrote:Upon further inspection, my Starscream is completely fubar'd.

Not only are the wing hinges installed wrong, one of the hinges are installed too far forward which wont let the wing come flush with the body at all.

SDC11017 (2).jpg

Which caused a massive stress mark in the shaft where the pin goes in

SDC11019 (2).jpg

Oh wow that sucks. Sorry to hear that.

LOST Cybertronian wrote:Not only are the wing hinges installed wrong, one of the hinges are installed too far forward which wont let the wing come flush with the body at all.

Which caused a massive stress mark in the shaft where the pin goes in

That's something I'd try to get exchanged. Not due to the hinges since they said those won't be grounds for one, but because of the assembly problem. Looks like it's gonna give over time, that's a good bit of stress visible on it.

ScottyP wrote:

LOST Cybertronian wrote:Not only are the wing hinges installed wrong, one of the hinges are installed too far forward which wont let the wing come flush with the body at all.

Which caused a massive stress mark in the shaft where the pin goes in

That's something I'd try to get exchanged. Not due to the hinges since they said those won't be grounds for one, but because of the assembly problem. Looks like it's gonna give over time, that's a good bit of stress visible on it.

Fired off an email last night and waiting to hear back

LOST Cybertronian wrote:

ScottyP wrote:

LOST Cybertronian wrote:Not only are the wing hinges installed wrong, one of the hinges are installed too far forward which wont let the wing come flush with the body at all.

Which caused a massive stress mark in the shaft where the pin goes in

That's something I'd try to get exchanged. Not due to the hinges since they said those won't be grounds for one, but because of the assembly problem. Looks like it's gonna give over time, that's a good bit of stress visible on it.

Fired off an email last night and waiting to hear back

2 emails now with no response

If you're not getting a response via email, please do try calling if that's an option for you. Angie or Karen should be able to help you straight away and remedy whatever issues they can.

817-448-9863
(9:00 am - 4:30 pm Central time Weekdays)

TF_JW wrote:If you're not getting a response via email, please do try calling if that's an option for you. Angie or Karen should be able to help you straight away and remedy whatever issues they can.

817-448-9863
(9:00 am - 4:30 pm Central time Weekdays)

i will try that thank you

I've been looking at some images of TFCC Ramjet, Skywarp and the Thunder Mayhem Combiner, and I realised that there's been a bit of a trend with both the main Generations line and the Club/Convention exclusives. Combiner Wars has been very Autobot heavy, and Thrilling 30 had more Autobots than anything else too, but both this year and next year's Subscription Service figures are mostly Decepticons or other villains, (Carzap was the only Autobot in this year's subscription, and Impactor is the only Autobot we know of for next year) and the few most recent BotCon box set figures have been mostly villains as well (Five Predacons next year, three Decepticons, a Shattered Glass Autobot and a Maximal this year, and three Star Seekers and two Cybertronian Knights last year).

It's probably a coincidence, and I doubt Hasbro, the Club or BotCon ever sit down and think "We should make most of the exclusive toys Decepticons!", and the 2013 Figure Subscription Service had more heroes than villains, but I just thought it was a fun little pattern.

I recently rearranged my collection and grouped all of the Convention and Club figures together and noticed the same thing. Decepticons take up three shelves compared to the single shelf for the Club/Con exclusive Autobots.

So I wouldn't say that it's been a conscious thing, no. But with the mainlines grabbing Autobots out of the available character pool, that does leave more Decepticons than Autobots bobbing around for the Club/Con to fish out when they get a chance.

So, finally got my Krok about a month ago. Transformed him for the first time and his right arm fell off. Messaged the club through their site and got no response. About a week later, I emailed them directly (with pictures). Still no response. Last week, I messaged through their site again. STILL no response.

Anyone any idea what I should do next? I paid for the insurance and this is very clearly a manufacturing fault (pin is either bent or was inserted at the wrong angle. Or both). This is the figure I wanted most from the set too.

Call or wait until after the holidays, I'd say. Maybe both.

Sorry that your emails have gone unobserved.

TF_JW wrote:Call or wait until after the holidays, I'd say. Maybe both.

Sorry that your emails have gone unobserved.

Calling would probably cost a small fortune, as I live in the UK. So I guess it's the waiting game for me. Thanks for responding here at least.

Courtesy of fellow Seibertronian TF_JW - via the Transformers Collectors' Club Facebook page - we get our first look at the final mock-up for Armada Skywarp, first revealed here. A remold of Generations Armada Starscream, Skywarp will feature his signature mouth-plated and horned head design, and will be one of the Club Store exclusive for 2016.



This image was also accompanied by the following details on next year's club subscription:

"If you are not currently a Transformers Collectors' Club (TCC) member OR if you need to renew, now is the time! Issue 67 of the TCC magazine will be the first issue of 2016 and will feature some AMAZING content! A selection of never before seen items, the start of the 2016 storyline (if you are a G1 fan you should REALLY dig this) and a look at the art for the 2016 Free Membership Incentive Figure RAMJET!

For those of you that enjoy the TCC Prose fiction, we have some big plans for 2016 as well! We will be announcing those plans in the next Issue of the magazine (A hint, it will tie in to the TFSS 5.0!)

Thank you to everyone who has made the TCC a part of your Transformers hobby! It is hard to believe that Ramjet is our 12th Membership Figure and we can't wait to show you the final samples with the NEW head sculpt!"

Don't forget to let us know what you think of him in the discussion. Do you like Skywarp more than Ramjet? Are you going to get him to complete the Armada 'Seeker Trio'? Let us know!

I'm glad that the FSS 5.0 is apparently going to get stronger fiction support than past four, I guess, but I'm really disappointed nothing will be done with the epic backstory for the FSS 4.0, and Thunder Mayhem won't be seen in action.

hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Ultra Markus wrote:hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Clearly the head was a greater concern.

Looking good! I'm pleased to be seeing more Armada on my shelves

So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You forgot the foc and legends figures too

Sabrblade wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Clearly the head was a greater concern.

clearly if they went so far as doing a head a simple little thing like different tail wings would be no problem

Ultra Markus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Clearly the head was a greater concern.

clearly if they went so far as doing a head a simple little thing like different tail wings would be no problem

Not when Fun Pub only ever retools one aspect per mold (usually being the head) outside of uber expensive super special "centerpiece" figures (which Skywarp most certainly isn't).

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

THE AGONY!!!

Hellscream9999 wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You forgot the foc and legends figures too

I totally included FOC seekers in my calculation - I was thinking Classics, FOC, and now Armada molds.

But you are correct. I did forget about those wily Legends class Seekers. I like those dudes.

Ultra Markus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Clearly the head was a greater concern.

clearly if they went so far as doing a head a simple little thing like different tail wings would be no problem

Except that, that's not necessarily true, and that there's nearly no precedent for them retooling the bodies beyond the head (nacelle might be the only one that I can think of)

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

THE AGONY!!!

Heh, be glad I didn't mention the Animated Seekers.

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

THE AGONY!!!

Hellscream9999 wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You forgot the foc and legends figures too

I totally included FOC seekers in my calculation - I was thinking Classics, FOC, and now Armada molds.

But you are correct. I did forget about those wily Legends class Seekers. I like those dudes.

Wups sorry...

(you'll also need that uw seeker arm)

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

THE AGONY!!!

Heh, be glad I didn't mention the Animated Seekers.

At least the Animated Seekers have proper hands...

Hellscream9999 wrote:Wups sorry...

(you'll also need that uw seeker arm)

Why yes... yes I will. You know we're going to get CW seekers, in all the ways, given those head sculpts.

Grand Galvatron is so deliciously random...

Hellscream9999 wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Ultra Markus wrote:hes still missing the fan turbines on his rear stabilizer wings

Clearly the head was a greater concern.

clearly if they went so far as doing a head a simple little thing like different tail wings would be no problem

Except that, that's not necessarily true, and that there's nearly no precedent for them retooling the bodies beyond the head (nacelle might be the only one that I can think of)

Nacelle's wings were recycled from BotCon 2007 Thrust, whose wings were new tooling (but were the same tooling duplicated rather than two new wing molds).

BotCon 2014 Scorponok is another example of non-head retooling since that figure's neck piece is what was retooled (with the head itself being omitted).

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:So I'll have 3 sets of deluxe seekers, 1 set of leader seekers, and 1 set of MP seekers... how about some voyagers???

You could always buy the original Armada Seekers.

Or the Movie 1 mold Starscream redecos of G1 Starscream, Thundercracker, and Skywarp (and Ramjet).

THE AGONY!!!

Heh, be glad I didn't mention the Animated Seekers.

At least the Animated Seekers have proper hands...

"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

megatronus wrote:

Hellscream9999 wrote:Wups sorry...

(you'll also need that uw seeker arm)

Why yes... yes I will. You know we're going to get CW seekers, in all the ways, given those head sculpts.

Grand Galvatron is so deliciously random...

Dude! I know! I'm still waiting for them

I cannot believe neither company has done that yet, especially as they seemed to have tooled the head into the mold

Sabrblade wrote:"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

They're shaped like hands, yes? Then they're proper hands.

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

They're shaped like hands, yes? Then they're proper hands.

I never knew "proper" meant "super fragile".

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

They're shaped like hands, yes? Then they're proper hands.

I never knew "proper" meant "super fragile".

proper =/= functional

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

They're shaped like hands, yes? Then they're proper hands.

I never knew "proper" meant "super fragile".

proper =/= functional

Just like a humans'

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:"Proper hands" have floppy, easily-breakable fingers?

They're shaped like hands, yes? Then they're proper hands.

I never knew "proper" meant "super fragile".

proper =/= functional

But is something really functional if it's often prone to easy breakage?