Talk:Targetmaster (technology)
We need to rewrite this slightly to accomodate the several Targetmaster partners who are not Nebulans, like the Deployers and some Action Master partners (the latter as depicted in Dreamwave's MTMTE profiles). --ItsWalky 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And the Seacons.... -Derik 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
...are Targetmasters Binary Bonded? -Derik 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Nebulans are. The robots (i.e., the Japanese gun-guys, Seacons, Action Master partners, etc)... prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrobably not. --M Sipher 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
...the japanese bun-guys are either fused to a single partner by an explosion, or mini-cons relepathicly bonded with their partners (depending on hwo revisionist you want to be while interpetign the beeping transformers only their partners understand.) That sounds pretty darn bonded to me. -Derik 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, one nice thing about makign some vidcaps here? It gave me an excuse to rewatch the David Wise interview. MAN that was a good interview. -Derik 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and random note? Double Targetmasters is a real phrase. Used ina UK letters page, fully proper-noun capitalized, by Dreadwind. Official enought o put in as a sub-section. (though the article isn't nearly ready for it yet.) -Derik 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I've already lost this argument, but I really don't think that a comic letters page is sufficient to call something "official."--G.B. Blackrock 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Action Master partners counted as Targetmasters? Wow: that means there were a lot more Targetmasters than I suspected! It's the craze that's sweeping the nation! -Dataraven 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. Dreamwave liked avoiding the term Action Master as if it were cancer. So most of the AM partners were labelled Targetmaster weapons. --ItsWalky 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"[Nebulans] gain the power to transform themselves into a gun, and if that was good enough for Megatron, then who are they to argue with the results?" That can't be appropriate Wiki-language can it?--G.B. Blackrock 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
