FANDOM


GN Sefer?

Do we have a citation for Exia being compatible with the GN Sefer?--Nkuzmik 14:03, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

GN Sefer was featured in magazines, showing how its components are fully compatible with docking with any Gundam 3rd generation Gundam. That is due to the part GN Sefer help design GN Arms. Wasabi 15:41, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, kvetching withdrawn. --Nkuzmik 16:28, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know,the showcase in the magazine was only showing off the compabilities of the actual models.The actual GN Sefer model may have been designed with combining with other Gundams,but this was to make the kit interesting,not because it can actually be done in a storyline perspective.I think it was stated so if I'm not mistaken.

This is not the only instance either,the same thing goes for 00 Archer.Thew 2 are not actually compatible,but are designed in http://images.wikia.com/common/__cb30567/skins/common/images/button_link.pngreal life to be so to give modelers some interesting options.The same thing goes XN Raiser was well,which can even be showned to be able to dock with Susanowo,which is not true storywise.

This is quite a regular feature placed in some of the kits from time to time.Usually,they should be able to enter the grey canon territory if they've gotten their own linearts,which is probably why 00 XN Raiser and XN 00 Gundam can be considered canon in some small form,even if we have gotten no instant that an actual physical version of XN Raiser was built yet.

SonicSP 17:16, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

kay, then my objection is re-registered. Now that I think about it, MG Freedom's wings and MG Strike's packs all use the same connection. I had the Freedom's wings on my Strike for about 10 minutes.--Nkuzmik 17:45, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Well think about it on a logical way. GN Sefer was a the prototype design to 0 Raiser and GN Arms. I don't know about you guys, but any developmental mobile tend to be compatible with other units. Even if not used for any docking, it can be a partner unit like GN Archer (without the docking). Exia RII may have been upgraded, but it can still use GN Arms or use other spare GN weapons. The Gundams more or less have very similar body structures, so logically it could be utilized; if you feel just because it was scene or officially published makes it suspicious, then I want object to you guys getting rid of GN Sefer, but at the same time in theory and logically, it can be used. Wasabi 22:35, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

With respect, sir, I feel that you are making basing your arguments on some weak propositions.
Developmental hardware tends to be one-off work that is intended for proof of concept or validation and verification. Interfacing developmental hardware with other equipment is often a finicky process. Lessons learned in the developmental stages are then used to refine the production version.
Furthermore, there are some rather profound structural changes that occur with each generation of Gundam development, even in refitting an existing design. Please see Talk:GN-001REII_Gundam_Exia_Repair_II#Beam_weapons_list.
Further evidence suggesting an cross generational hardware incompatibility can be found in comparing images of [1] and [2]. Please examine the left forearm of each suit and you notice the characteristic "docking port" that is used by virtually all GN powered units in this series. The RII's port has been resized, and relocated, to make it consistent with the 4th generation Gundams.
Now you point out a willingness on my part to discount the graphic evidence that you have provided in support of your position. I admit this may be capricious on my part however, as SonicSP stated, the model designers at Bandai have designed the kits for this series with a degree of interchangeability that is in not indicated in the show or manga. I reject the evidence of Exia being able to use the GN Sefer on the basis that said evidence stems from the same source that tells us of the Susanowo XN Raiser. Because other evidence from your source is suspect, the evidence you cite is then suspect.
--Nkuzmik 13:50, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Have we found a source for the GN Sefer working with any Gen 3 or Gen 4 gundams that can be attributed to something other than non-cannon model features?--Nkuzmik 17:12, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

GN Sefer + 3rd Gen Gundams Article

I loaded this subject in the main GN Sefer page, but apparently nobody noticed it. Take a look and tell me what you think. Wasabi 23:01, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Split Exia Repair or Keep?

Since every different version of MS's have been split, should Gundam Exia Repair get the same treatment? For now, it's only a redirect link. What you think? Wasabi 00:05, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Nah.. exia repair is same mobile suit (with replacement parts?), we shouldn't split a page off every time a mobile suit is repaired or partially repaired. Simant 00:14, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Concur. Its just a field expdient repair. If it was something different, like grafting a Tiern's arm on or something, maybe. --Nkuzmik 03:30, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
No, Exia Repair is the same Exia with its arm chopped off and a Tieren eye. Suits like the R2 and the three GNHW types are the same suits, just upgraded substantially. Gaeaman788 04:11, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Repair version should be split. It's just like Dynames without one of the legs, like when Ptolemy was being attacked by HRL in space--YessMasster 16:53, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry the consensus was reached to keep Exia Repair in with plain old Exia

--Nkuzmik 15:58, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Rear image

FYI Taikage, the image of Exia's rear, if you look closely enough, has an extra GN Sword/Rifle instead of a shield. Just to let you know --Gaeaman788 04:20, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the original CG Artist took down the original image of Exia, the front view one. It was originally a single pic, but the man has since changed the site and moved around the pics. If you can back track the history of that guy's page, maybe you can recover the pic...that or replace the front one with the dual GN Sword/Rifle since you know where the site is now.

Wasabi 05:27, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

GN Swrod/Rifle

Why was my contribution about GN Sword/Rifle removed? As far as i'm concerned attacks with GN Sword were slower than with other weapons, which was proven in first fight with Graham, when Setsuna needed to switch to Beam Sabre as Flag dodged all of Setsuna's attacks

I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what you said. What was the text of your edit. Also, please remember to sign you posts to the talk page. --Nkuzmik 14:38, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing,

I wrote in the article: "Due to it's enormous size attacks with this weapon are relatively slow. When facing faster opponents Setsuna has to witch to either one of the GN Blades or Beam Saber" --YessMasster 16:48, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

That was addressed within the Tech and Combat Characteristics.
Small beam blades, GN Beam Daggers are used as throwing weapons or when an enemy gets too close for anything else. Virtually weightless GN Beam Sabers allow Exia to match faster oppoents, who might otherwise evade a physical blade[1].

Ahh, ok then, I must have missed it--YessMasster

Petition to Remove Rear CG Image

I'm petitioning to remove the rear CG image from the main image article [IE the top spot].I find the usage of potraying Exia with 2 GN Swords is misleading as its standard equipment does not list it as such.Not to mention a configuration like that was never used anyways.I suggest it be kept in the gallery,where people can still admire the coolness of the pic if they want to but I think it should not be at the top page at the front section of the article,as it mispotrays the "standard" look of Exia.This problem isnt limited to Exia article in my opinion,but I intend to raise the issue first with Exia.

The other one is fine.I suggest either we find a rear counterpart for that one with the single GN Sword or we just leave it there as the only image at the top.SonicSP 11:15, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Well I finally found and fixed the image; you better be damn content. :P Wasabi 07:39, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

No that image is way 2ugly CHANGE ITCHANGEITNOW!!!!!!!

Just kidding,that image looks great and matches the other one.Thanks,dude.^_^-SonicSP 10:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Its "GN Sword" Not "GN Sword/Rifle"

Since I've seen it reverted back to sword/rifle a few times already,I'll make this for future references.

Now Exia's main solid sword weapon?Its called the "GN Sword";not the GN Sword/Rifle.It never has been named that for the weapon and we simply can't put it as a name just because it can do that function.

Its a sword that has a beam rifle function,so yes it has a beam rifle as a function.However,it doesnt change the fact that the sword is not called that officially.A weapon is named by whats stated to be named,and only that.Regardless of other function it might have aside from main one.

Take Arios's GN Beam Shield,the Beam Shield is stated and seen to have the ability to act as claws.Infact anime-wise its only been seen acting as claws.However,this function does not at all change the fact that the weapon is officially called GN Beam Shield.

Nadleeh's GN Beam Rifle is called GN Beam Rifle and it has a beam saber mode.......but its not called the GN Rifle/Beam Saber is it?Just like the GN Sword II is not called the GN Sword/Rifle/Beam Saber/Launcher II........its just called GN Sword II,no more no less.

You don't see 00 Seven Sword's be called GN Buster Sword/Shield/Field Generator II either........its just called GN Buster Sword II,like its mentioned to be.

I think I made enough examples.SonicSP 20:39, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well I have some scans that challenge that SonicSP! Have you ever heard of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 World Report? (1),(2)] Anyways, it has a scan of GN-001 Gundam Exia that lists the armaments. (3) It has "GN Sword" then "GN Sword Rifle Mode", basically suggesting the second mode of the GN Sword would be called "GN Sword Rifle Mode". Their is also a topic on Mecha Talk 2.0, were someone puts the name of the weapon as "GN sword/GN sword rifle Mode". So from all that, I'm assuming that its legit at least. What do you think? -Dav7d2 - The ChroniK Editor! 11:24, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Don't see anything significant there, it always has been called Rifle Mode, it's not the same as GN Sword/Rifle which is where it's name is essentially changes to GN Rifle in Rifle Mode from GN Sword. In this form, it's still called GN Sword as it should br which is beside the point I was making.
It's far different from the GN Big Cannon which change it's name to GN Claw when used as such and is a totally different name from the original weapon (essentially, the name of the weapon is GN Big Cannon/Claw). The GN Sword name still remains as such, only that it's in Rifle Mode instead of Sword Mode. The multi name is also lacking in future versions of the lineage as a few others use weapons like the Arche Buster Sword and the Gadessa Mega Launcher. The book is simply using a different convention of displaying the weapons, by displaying all options as opposed to specific individual equipment.
Also, the sourcebooks and other text sources like DVD manuals have a less consistent track record of names and categories than Bandai's model kit manuals who are almost always consistent with that they say. They're usually reliable enough for when there is no model kit manual available (the GN Flag is one example, our name for its equipment comes from one of the DVD manual) but they're less powerful and reliable. The CB-001 mixup for example, was never stated in the model kit manuals.(in which case the manuals in questions would be the PG 00 Raiser, HG 1.5 Gundam and HG Raphael Gundam) -SonicSP 16:07, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Drive Burst Ability

I'm not sure whether it was ever in the article or not but its not at the time of this writing. The Drive Burst ability that is showcaed by R2 should be included in the article because it is an ability of the original Exia, or more specifically an ability of Exia's cone. According to the MG Exia manual it was an ability available from original Exia rather than an add on for R2 however it was not used very often because of its unstabality. -SonicSP 18:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Photo Talk! D=!

I think the Picture Gallery should be lessened by a bit. too many not needed photos, I think. But before any of you start removing photos just because you think it is not needed, you should suggest it here and we will have a consensus on whether it stays or goes. Dav7d2 12:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll start with this [3], Sd Exia. I vote remove. -SonicSP 14:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the last SD would be the one to be removed.
My opinion, the first 4th and 4th last can be removed. That pic with caption "Exia intersects Tieren" can go too. Same with "GN-001 EXIA". --Bronx01 15:02, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Add another removal vote from me for the [4](MS Girl Exia) as well. -SonicSP 15:57, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Girl versions of the Mobile Suits seemed to be acceptable by the community. It's also a fan art, and we are never really against fan arts (except on Profile images). Hmmm... do you think it's time for the community to discuss what pic are need to be posted on the site? --Bronx01 16:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't give two hoots about this page's issue in particular but I will chip into the last part of your statement and say that yes, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere if this is going to be a Gundam 'encyclopedia', which is what a wiki is. For starters, the priority should always be to canon art; if you want to look at fanart, you can go browse deviantart, one of the 'booru's, or pixiv. It might sound heavy handed but even if it's a really nice fanart, an encyclopedic site really isn't the place for it... My 2 cents. Kit-chan 10:09, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with fanarts but this one in particular seem totally irrelevant to me, anyways that's just my vote. We have to get the voting before we can remove any of it as the topic suggested. I will also vote to remove the Exia R2 pic, but only so we can move it to the R2 page where it seems more fitting. (not that it's unfitting but if were gonna remove stuff around, I thought putting it there would be a nicer fitting touch IMO since David suggested the gallery is overloaded)

This is getting a bit disorganised. How about we create a separate section below for the actual "voting", that way it would be easy to keep up with the votes for a specific image. We can use the current section for the actual discussion, making the voting section clean and organised. -SonicSP 16:57, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

How much time should be given for the voting? Dav7d2 19:20, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Until we feel like it's alright I guess and once a certain amount of majority votes are gathered. (I can see most of them achieved this already). I think a few days from now we can check again and see any new votes come in and if not, then I guess we can take it out of the election process. All of them except MS Girl have more than 80% majority already in a specific decision.
Remember guys, anybody can suggest a new pic from the Exia gallery for voting. Just insert it in the voting section using the formats that already been outlined.
Also, if anybody wants to vote "abstain" IE neutral on a certain pic, that's fine too. That way, it wont count towards anything but we know that the user has taken a look at it, so the pic will be closer to being "wrapped up" towards whatever decision that it has the majority in. -SonicSP 09:38, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

May be time to wrap things up? it's been awhile already since any activity. -SonicSP 18:39, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah its about time we finished this, we got all the votes we needed, so yeahhhh.......
-Dav7d2 - The ChroniK Editor! 17:28, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Okay I'll remove those pics not yet removed --Bronx01 01:13, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

PhotoTalk Part 2: Voting

Let's start with this one. Bring forth any image you want to put up for a vote but keep each image grouped together with their respective votes (Ive numbered this two, just continue with each new pic brought in). Oh and be kind and adjust the counter after casting your vote(if you didnt vote neutral). Make sure you post a link to the photo when you bring it up for voting.

Important: Make sure you position your post under the photo your voting but above a different photo. For example, if you want to vote for "photo 1)" make sure it's under the last vote posted there but above the next pic voting. Easier for us to keep count on which pic is getting what votes.



1) [5](MS Girl Exia) Keep: 4; Remove: 2

I vote for removal. -SonicSP 17:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I vote keep. Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Keep it We have MS Girl on almost all the other pagesGaeaman788 19:01, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to remove an MS Girl -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I vote remove. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

2) [6] (SD Exia) Keep: 0; Remove: 5

Voted for removal. -SonicSP 17:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I vote remove. Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Goodbye, SD Exia -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

3) [7] Keep: 1; Remove: 5

vote to remove --Bronx01 17:54, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I vote to remove. Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I vote keep. -SonicSP 07:19, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

4)[8] Keep: 0; Remove: 7

vote to remove --Bronx01 17:54, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I second that. -SonicSP 17:56, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I vote to remove. Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I fourth thatGaeaman788 19:01, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I fifth it. -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Sixth it. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

5)[9] Keep: 1; Remove: 7

vote to remove --Bronx01 17:54, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. -SonicSP 17:57, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Remove also. Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Remove.--CrusaderRedG21 18:52, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Eliminate itGaeaman788 19:01, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Take it off -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I say keep this one and get rid of the other one of him destroying a tieren. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

6)[10] Keep:0; Remove: 5

vote to remove --Bronx01 17:54, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Remove! Dav7d2 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Into the dungeon with it! -The Phantom Impact - The ultimate Super Robot from beneath the heavens 03:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Farmboy28 23:37, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Remove. —AscendedAlteran 02:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
I vote neutral. -SonicSP 09:39, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Exia Startup!

Remote Startup!

Remeber when Setsuna was running towards Exia, and pressed his earpiece and said "Priority Pass to Setsuna F. Seiei" and the external camouflage was disabled. This was on the screen before Exia started up. -Dav7d2 13:31, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The ID system has a name. I guess we can insert this in a minor profile somewhere on the site. I'm reckoning all the CB ID systems including the Thrones are named after this as well. -SonicSP 09:03, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Exia's Maximum acceleration?

Hm.... I wonder how fast is Exia's maximum speed without trans-am? Graham flag is around 12G...... While Tallgeese is 15G...lol

Not mentioned anywhere. 00 doesn't provide much of this type of stats. -SuperSonicSP 20:55, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
It's over 9000!Kuruni 07:15, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Technical Difficulties?

Guys, maybe it's just me, but isn't Exia's profile info box look like a bunch of error codes? Taikage 07:53, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

It's fine here. But I've found the problem in Full Frontal & Reborns Gundam's info box. Don't know whether the problem is only seen at my place or seen by everyone...Pronunciation 10:36, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem right now. Just do a refresh or use the "Refresh" option underneath the "Edit" button. --Bronx01 (talk|contribs) 13:19, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Composite Armor

[11]

calubin_175's post; I've highlighted the parts where he's translating rather than commenting:


"The Astraea shield does confirm the common construction material of E-carbon between its armor and shield. Now, Having read the MG Exia shield a bit more thoroughly, I will attempt a full translation.

GN Shield(MG Exia)

A shield made of E-carbon that possesses high strength. Deploying a GN Field on its surface, it realizes high defense capability. As long as it receives power supplied from the Exia, it is difficult for conventional weapons to destroy it. Given that Gundams starting from the Exia are covered in armor that holds the same ability(of the power supply thing mentioned on the previous sentence), it can be thought that a shield is unnecessary at first glance. However, due to the flexibility of the arm, the shield that is mounted on the freely movable arm holds the role of absorbing shock from attacks. Also, with the Exia shield, its left right parts are movable, enabling a wide defense area. Since the expanded state has physical defense reduced, given the configuration/state of heightening the GN Field effect, particle consumption is increased.

Hmm, the expanded state is pretty new to me and the wrapped in armor without needing a shield eludes to invincibility due to the particle supplement but does not specify whether it is surface or inside effect. The part about starting with Exia probably just accounts for the officially commissioned combat models, which excludes the Plutone prototype."


Well, somethings been bugging me for awhile. The stuff that the MG eludes to sounds a lot like the Composite Armor, but the Composite Armor as explained in Plutone is a GN Field placed between two physical layers of armor. When the an attack hits the armor, it can get destroyed but the Field can protect the inner layer (At least, the Plutone 00P chapter says this; the example above comes from a test when Astraea's Bazooka is fired upon Plutone's Composite Armor at 50% power). The MG Exia mechanism is definite a GN defensive mechanism, but hard to say whether its an improved Composite Armor or a different system. The problem would be, our assumption of the main defensive system used by modern GN suits is the Composite Armor and the assumptions for the Gundam going forward mainly comes from this citation translated.

So the current question being, can we consider this description of function as part of the Composite Armor? It wouldnt be farfetched, because the GN Composite Armor is just a GN Field in sandwiched between E-Carbon armor layers. That you add a GN Field effect on the surface can be interpreted as an extension of a very similar concept. On the other hand, the powered armor concept seems to follow the exact same as the "E-Carbon with GN Field on the surface" concept that GN Shields of machines like Astraea and and even the 0 Gundam seem to have, and these GN Shield surface concepts predate the implementation of the Inner GN Field System that was described on Plutone (And named the Composite Armor).

Basically, I'm mentioning all this because I wondering about the appropriateness of stating the "GN Composite Armor" on the "Armor inside the infobox" section of all the modern GN mobile suits. I think assuming that the surface GN Field effect is safe because of the MG mention, but whether we can safely say "GN Composite Armor" per say, I'm not sure. Im not really calling for any actio for now because my thoughts on the issue is pretty turbelent but its just something thats been bothering me and I thought its worth sharing. Not to mention, I recall starting the Composite Armor on modern GNMS trend due to this cite (And I've even miscited it as 00P chapter 4 for when I was thinking of this), so I sort of feel responsible as well.

Thoughayer, if CB created such a great defensive inner system and only used it on 2 of their mobile suits, that would be pretty bad too. I do think logically, I find it extremely unlikely that CB and the rest of the blocs are not going to use the system but I'm just wondering whether we have references to be able to justify it.

-SuperSonicSP (talk) 16:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think its a developed feature. Looking at 00P, at the time of Plutone's testing, CB could not make/stabilize the external GN Field, and has to reduce to sandwiching it between two armour layers to make it feasible. If CB managed to complete the external GN Field, the sandwich feature might not be needed anymore. Just my thoughts --Bronx01 (talk|contribs) 20:53, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of replacing all GN Composite Armor listings with "GN Field Layer" with the exception of Full Armor and Plutone. The "" is to refer to the fact that it is a descriptive name. If the MG Exia is correct, it does seem to suggest that it became standard equipment on the Gundams (and by extension other GNMS that derive their techs from Gundams). Because its still a powerful defense system, it still merits mention on the Armor section be ause this apparently is the stuff that makes the Gundams' armor so nigh powerful, such as the extreme beating it could take for hours and hours in Takalamakan Desert. I was thinking of linking these to a new entry in the weapons section where I'll just describe the system as a GN Field layer on the E-Carbon Armor. -SuperSonicSP (talk) 18:50, February 8, 2013 (UTC)


Just to restart the discussion, should we keep the Composite Armor mentions? Remove them and just leave E-Carbon? Or replace them with a more vague descriptive word such as "GN-based Armor" (the quotes being there to indicate an unofficial descriptive name)? -SuperSonicSP (talk) 17:56, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Very late reply, i favor the use of the vague description as other than Plutone and FA 0 Gundam, we dont really know if the rest use GN Composite armor.Zeph08 (talk) 02:50, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Yay for response!
I think I'm leaning for vague descriptive name in the armor section. At the very least the Exia MG gives us leeway to do that for the CB Gundams. Does become a question whether we should do it for the other GNMS too though. While we are already doing the same for E-Carbon, the evidence of E-Carbon being on most/all MS is stronger especially with that 00N description. -SuperSonicSP (talk) 15:44, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Gundam Seven Swords???

Read the 1st paragraph of Exia's page & you'll find that Exia is also known as Gundam Seven Swords. Where can we find the references about Exia being called as Gundam Seven Swords? It was not even called by that name in the episode 6, where the Seven Swords System was introduced for the 1st time... Pronunciation (talk) 06:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

The sub i seen have Lockon saying that Gundam Seven Swords is exia's development code name in ep6.Zeph08 (talk) 07:18, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Gonna check it later...Pronunciation (talk) 07:37, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Beam Sabers

If the Ptolemaios Gundams don't have GN Condensers in their handles, then how can Setsuna/Exia throw the GN Beams Sabers and GN Daggers without the beam blades dissipitating? BusterGundam (talk) 20:24, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

I recall that notion existing but I can't recall on the top of my head whether any source materials actually mentioned that at any point. Certainly seems like they would have condensers if they can remain activated after leaving the hands. -SuperSonicSP (talk) 22:35, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.