Talk:Sandstorm (G1)

When it detonated five minutes later, Sandstorm and the Paradronians stood alongside the Autobots and watched their homeworld's destruction. "It's as beautiful in death as it was in life," Sandstorm eulogized simply. Rodimus openly mocked him and told him Cybertron was better.

It's funny because that's not an exaggeration. Oh, Rodimus, you dick. --68.75.18.107 05:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Rodimus was seriously on the rag that episode. I think the ep was written kind of tongue-in-cheek; there's a lot of comedy that's begging for better delivery. And then there are just bizarre little moments, like when Rodimus decides out of nowhere that they should blow the planet up, and Sandstorm gets this big grin on his face as he talks about the escape pods. I think he's been waiting for an excuse to ride in an escape pod all his life. - Jackpot 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If only Sandstorm was around in Headmasters when Scorponok blows up Cybertron. A reversal would have been hilarious. Or not. I don't think Rodimus cared about that, either. --ItsWalky 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No one but Galvatron cared! I still can't believe how trivial it was to blow up their planet. How did no one do it before, if they all care so little about its survival? -LV 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And Galvatron had been the first one to TRY to blow it up, back in Chaos. I mean, I guess it makes sense. Who among us hasn't yearned to obliterate the Earth at one point or another? I know I'm always fiddling with some doomsday device or other. - Jackpot 23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A year or two ago, I made three smallish bombs and had my thuggish lackeys place them in a couple of places around town, planning to reduce our planet to a mass of radioactive rubble. But then bin Laden ran up and defused them. -LV 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hunt for the Decepticons Legends Sandstorm

Would this be considered a new toy for G1 Sandstorm or a new individual, possibly in movie continuity? 95.148.9.47 04:49, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Given that Hasbro's being purposly obscure about Gold Box continuity, honestly no one will know for sure until he's given a detailed bio or appears in a story somewhere. --ZacWilliam 09:00, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Discussion moved from Sandstorm (TF 2010)

If we're saying that 2010 Tracker Hound is G1 Hound then shouldn't 2010 Sandstorm be G1 Sandstorm? 95.148.8.143 06:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

We can't know that either way until his bio is published. --abates 06:28, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

When do Legends-class toys ever get a bio nowadays? Personally I'd consider Tracker Hound part of the movie continuity given that's what everyone else in the 2010 toyline is (and non-Movie-ers are being sold as Generations and PCC). --Detour 06:33, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Spot the person who doesn't pay attention to the packaging. (I suppose I kinda should :) --abates 06:47, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

That was actually somewhat of a legit question on my part, though, given how much gets sacrificed on Canadian packaging to comply with Quebec's Angry Frenchy Law. --Detour 06:49, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I've made a Hound (TF 2010) article, since the TF 2010 stuff we seem to consider them to be either movie characters or just "TF2010" characters. I initially called the article "Tracker Hound", but to me, the "Tracker" part sounds more like some sort of descriptor than his name. What do you guys think? --FFN 06:54, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, seems more like a function than part of his name. --abates 08:12, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't have one to hand, but I don't think the packaging Australasia gets for Legends has a space for a bio either. --abates 07:10, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I think we've made the wrong choice here, the initial anonymous post seems more reasonable to me. Both figures are G1 series molds and Sandstorm is in G1 inspired colors. Given that Legends mixes continuities (Animated Legends released in previous waves without Animated logos) and that there is virtually nothing that can be said about them, it seems most parsimonious to put them on the G1 character pages. --Khajidha 10:03, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Just for the record, the packaging for both Sandstorm and Tracker Hound (shown at BotCon) have different tech spec numbers from the G1 guys. Not saying that it proves anything, but it's something to keep in mind. --Apoc 13:59, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

So, now that we've merged the Hounds, what about this article? --Khajidha 17:28, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the info. I'd really like it if tech specs were consistent, but Generations Thrust got weaker, stupider, more cowardly, and lost firepower, but still managed to get promoted since G1. He also improved a couple of points in endurance. - Starfield 23:04, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

With the release of DotM Sandstorm it's looking more like the Legends guy was a Movie character all along - they have the same tech specs and type of vehicle mode Zandergb 16:13, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

GDO Sandstorm

1. He's out. 2. The one I got has crappy facepaint. Anyone else have this problem, and, if so, should we make a note of it? --75.82.9.197 19:16, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

Nick Roche design influence

Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. Antimatter 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) Jalaguy 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

... says Jalaguy, without re-checking Twitter... >_< It sounds, then, like Roche designed Sandstorm and his transformation, and Hasbro used that to design a toy that would serve as both Springer and Sandstorm. It does still seem like they gave precedence to matching Springer's design, though. Jalaguy 16:57, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Stopping the bickering now.

Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? Escargon (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. Saix (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

I disagree because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --Xaaron (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny and informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. Saix (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

I think it was a bit extreme to call the write-up "garbage," as it's not badly written. But I do agree it could use some expanding. --Ascendron (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2016 (EDT)