Friday, June 15, 2012

HG 1/144 Gundam AGE-FX - On Display @ Tokyo Toy Show 2012

HG 1/144 Gundam AGE-FX  (Release Date: Aug 2012, Price: 1680 yen)
Image via Gundam.Info

20 comments:

  1. Why is the rifle/cannon here different from the one in the AG?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears to be the same rifle as can be seen from certain details, just with additional parts to make it larger.

      Delete
    2. AGE's definition of BFG (which includes Madorna's Shaldoll Custom, AGE 3 Normal, Fortress, Defurse, Diva, etc)

      Delete
  2. I think this cannon was built by the AGE-System a bit later than the Suite itself. So thys Cannon will either be in a magazine as a special or we have to scratch build it. But maybe, if BANDAI has a good day, they will send it with the suite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. looking at the nature of the plastic, and the fact that the rifle has 3 forms, it could possibly be included with the kit. hopefully

      Delete
    2. It's obviously part of the kit you stupid fucks. It's made of plastic, finalized colored plastic,not scratch built or resin.

      Delete
    3. I love it when an anon curses. just love it..

      Delete
    4. Does anyone know exactly how the AGE system conceives and powers this beast? SF had a nuclear reactor, 00 Gundam had the Twin GN Drive system (off 0 Gundam and Exia's) Qant had the Quantum System, just wonder how exactly is this thing going to fly and last in battle.'

      If it's just going to rely on good ol verniers i don't see any propellant tanks at the back, maybe AGE FX will have a limited operation time just like all the other AGE gundams before it if it just relies on plain thrusters.

      Or maybe because of the EXA-DB, the EFF has learnt something that the Vagans use in their propulsion/energy technology.

      Delete
  3. That's very cool! Only downsides: No red (aww) and those're some mighty skinny ankles with some enormous armour plates around them: why not just have big ankles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like it better without red, just like Q[Ant] first colour, blue-white-yellow before changed to usual RWB

      Delete
    2. People assumed Quanta was originally white and blue. The based it off one animation frame in which you could not see the waist and feet (the only red parts on the suit), not actual line art that showed the suit. Quanta was always planned to follow the same color scheme as Exia and 00.

      Delete
    3. Yuri Barbosa OrdesteJune 15, 2012 at 8:28 AM

      There is a original line art of Quanta, which he is without red... Every gundam on 00 movied had an early type that got redesigned

      Delete
    4. I bet that it's fan art like the early Dark Hound image.

      Delete
  4. Three forms? Where are this infos? Iám sorry but this point I have missed till now. Can anybody please tell me where this Info was posted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the earlier promo poster for the HG AGE-FX

      this - http://gundamguy.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/hg-1144-gundam-age-fx-clear-promo-image.html

      Delete
  5. Beginning 30 anyone? That's what I thought when I noticed the abundance of clear green parts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, Ghirarga and this. I loved how they amalgamated that design into AGE FX. I dunno if the bits will allow Kio some sort of defensive fields right down to the flexible beam whip/rod ala Beginning 30. Or possibly Qant/Cherudim GNHW style bit blades that also shoot beams either individually or together to create a bigger more powerful blast. I have a feeling Kio is about to go Strike Freedom + Trans Am Raiser + 00 Qant Full Burst Berserk mode, annihilating so many Vagans in one go. But that would make Kio too overpowered, and the series could end up as a continuation of Tomino's 'KILL EM ALL!

      Delete
  6. I'm going to have to say, I <3 the AGE-FX.

    I dunno why exactly, but it's as if it got just the look I like.

    ReplyDelete
  7. love the design of this kit. specially the parts for the feet. far cry from the age 2 w/c is just horrible imo

    ReplyDelete