FANDOM


This is the talk page for Codex/Ships and Vehicles.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Normandy Edit

I have the strategy guide for the game. It claims that there is a Secondary Codex entry for the Normandy. I'm really not sure how accurate this is as the guide was of dreadful quality, both in the case of printing and a few factual errors. Is there one that can be picked up? --Thejadefalcon 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's referring to one of the secondary Codex entries about the Normandy's heat management or FTL flight or something. Otherwise that's a bit of a puzzler, but if the guide isn't a particularly good one, as you say, it may be an error. --Tullis 12:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it covered those. Every major plot world, it had a section dedicated to the Codex entries in that area. There were a few which it labelled as Primary when they were Secondary and vice versa, some weren't in at all in guide et cetera. The printing was horrible and cramped on at least three occasions and the romance sections were meant to have their own appendix but they were merely scattered throughout the guide. All in all, not the best twelve pounds I've ever spent. --Thejadefalcon 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanix Cannon Edit

I was listening to the Primary Codex entry for the Thanix cannon, and noticed an error. The Thanix cannon fires every 5 seconds (numerical form, not written out) according to the written codex, but it is read as being able to fire every fifteen seconds. I personally think that the written codex is in error, as it's a lot easier to leave out a 1 before the five than it is to say fifteen instead of five. Has something been released to clarify this, or, if not, what do you think? Zero-G Mako 18:51, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? has no else one noticed the error, or just don't care, or what? Zero-G_Mako aka Orodum 04:13, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It's also pretty easy to misread a script and say fifteen when it reads five. After all, it's not like they could have left a 1 out. It's written out (i.e. five instead of 5). I'm inclined to stick with the written version as canon, as the written version is what came straight from BioWare, as opposed to coming from BioWare and then going through an actor. SpartHawg948 05:09, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
It's not written out, though... (see my 1st paragraph above) it's just the number 5. and while it's easier to drop a 1, I think I remember (although it's been quite a while) the cannon firing at about 7 seconds intervels in teh final cinematic, which is odd --Zero-G Mako 22:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Not written out, huh? To quote the Codex entry for the Thanix Cannon, "The Thanix can fire reliably every five seconds, rivaling a cruiser's firepower but mountable on a fighter or frigate." (emphasis added) Looks pretty written out to me. Finally, I wouldn't base a weapons rate of fire on the cutscenes. When a rate of fire is listed, it's under ideal circumstances. Use in battle is hardly ideal. SpartHawg948 22:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum- just checked in-game, and it sure as you-know-what is written out (five, not 5). So yeah, I'd be more inclined to think it's the person reading the entry that is in error, for the reasons previously listed. SpartHawg948 23:01, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to treat the entire codex entry for the Thanix as apocrypha. First of all, it makes no sense that the Reapers wouldn't have energy beam weapons while the (much younger) collectors do. Secondly, in another game scene we hear that an alliance ships gun accelerates it's projectiles to 1.3c (that's 1.3 x the speed of light), though I'm more inclined to dismiss that particular comment. It seems that the super advanced Reapers should have the more advanced weaponry. What do you guys think? Dstarfire 18:46, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If we treat this one entry as apocrypha, we have to treat it all as apocrypha. We can't pick and chose what elements we want to accept as canon. So yeah, I see no reason to stop treating the Codex as canon on the basis of assumptions about the relative levels of advancement of various weapons. SpartHawg948 19:24, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not suggesting we change the site to reflect this, or treat it any differently. I just wanted to mention the inconsistency and suggest that we'll likely see some sort of correction from Bioware. I'm also curious if anybody else noticed this or can think of a good in-game explanation for it. Dstarfire 20:03, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this gun is pretty common amongst the warships in ME 3. Everywhere I look, the codex or War Room mentions them armed with this. Even the Volus Dreadnought. And yes, there is one. Just the one. Stormkeeper 13:48, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comments like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 15:45, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thanix cannon picture Edit

I noticed that the picture for the thanix cannon in this codex is not the same as the in-game codex's picture for it. Is this a problem? I could change it to the "official" image if needed. I only bring it up because I remember reading that there were only supposed to be "official" pictures in the codex entries. I could be mis-remembering that of course. Dammej 05:57, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if it is the wrong image, the it needs to go. We only keep the official Codex articles and pictures here. If you could double check, and if it is wrong, upload the real one and replace it, that would be great. Thanks for spotting that, or checking if it is right. Lancer1289 06:02, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I added it after someone uploaded it, but I didn't check to be sure it was the actual codex image. If it's the wrong image, go ahead and replace it with the right one.Tophvision 06:04, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Still even if it wrong, it still looks like a codex picture. And vaguely familiar. Again I can't be sure right now. Let's just wait and see. Lancer1289 06:05, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed wrong. it's actually taken from the cinematic at the end of the game, rather than the Codex. They look incredibly similar though. I'm in the process of cropping it down now. Dammej 06:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I thought it looked familiar. Again thanks for catching that. Lancer1289 06:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
There it is. Bet you couldn't even tell it changed. :) Dammej 06:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well they did look very close/familiar, which ever term you want to use, I guess that is why no one caught it before. Again thanks for catching that. Lancer1289 06:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

FTL Edit

The codex entry for thrusters explains that the way ships slow down in FTL travel is by doing a 180 degree flip and applying thrust in the opposite vector. Despite this rather unusual manner they explain and take the time to point out they don’t actual show it in game. Every time a ship is shown existing FTL it is facing the direction it is going not facing the direction it came from as would be the case in their flip to slow down technique. Also I don’t really see a dreadnought, especially the Destiny Accession, doing any sort of quick 180 flip as would be needed to not throw the ship off course. I suppose they could do a flip again before exiting but in my opinion why not just steadily dial down the mass effect field to get back to relativistic speed. Just a little food for thought.

The only ships that we see drop straight out of FTL are the SR-1, SR-2, Kodiak shuttle, and the Collector ship. The Normandy duo and the Kodiak seem to have forward thrusters as well as rear, allowing for deceleration without flipping around. As for the Collector ship, well, who knows how it might decelerate?
As for "slowly dialing down", the codex says that going from FTL to sublight speeds by dropping the mass effect field releases lethal radiation. Not a very good option. Tophvision 23:00, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
I thought they simply used their drive cores to reduce the ships effective mass (and thus it's inertia) meaning they can slow or stop with much smaller thrusters. This is also how they can make such radical maneuvers that would otherwise be unthinkable for vessels of that size. I'm guessing that particular entry was probably done towards the end of the day, when people aren't thinking as well.
On the other hand, if inertia is an issue, there are two possible explanations:
1. The direction of FTL field is independent of the vessels orientation. Thus, you could reverse the FTL field without turning the vessel.
2. They shut off their thrusters and 'coast' in FTL long enough to turn the ship around. Without drag, there's no reason maneuvering thrusters couldn't turn the vessel without altering it's course (think of a tank turning in place).

Dstarfire 19:06, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

MSV meaning Edit

So it's been stated that SSV means "Systems Alliance Space Vehicle". Has it been stated what MSV means?

I don't believe so. In my opinion, MSV stands for "Merchant Space Vehicle" since the majority of ships we've seen with this designation have been freighters or ships associated with corporations. Only an idea, though. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:59, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah BioWare has yet to make any sort of comment on that. Lancer1289 21:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Merchant Space Vehicle does make sense. thanks for the opinion. Heres to hoping it's covered in some sort of released Mass Effect Bible / Encyclopedia some day. PanchromaticRhythm 23:36, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to keep speculating, then please take it to the forums or a blog post. Lancer1289 23:37, January 24, 2012 (UTC)


Thanix page revised Edit

I'm considering changing the Codex about the Thanix, on the basis of the audio log stating fifteen instead of five seconds. Reason for this is simply the script. When a voice actor is given a script, it is given in "written" form (don't know how to describe it otherwise). Say a script says 400.000, it is written in four-hundred-thousand instead of 400.000. If this is the case, then the written codex is in error, instead of the audio codex.

--82.95.93.38 14:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)Quite Spiffing

And this is not permitted by site policy. The audio is the audio, and the written is the written. To Quote from the MoS: "For Codex entries with an audio entry, if the audio entry differs from the text entry, then no action should be taken. Text entries are verbatim from the game and stay that way regardless of what the audio entry says. The text entry should reflect the in-game text Codex entry, not the audio entry, regardless of any discrepancy between the two." So any changing is completely unauthorized. Written entries are Verbatim from the game. No changes and no exceptions. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:54, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 1 Carrier entry? Edit

How do you unlock the Carrier Entry in ME 1? I read that it was supposed to come when the rear admiral inspects Normandy but I played through that part last night, charm answers all the way, and didn't get it.

--Roguestar (talk) 23:14, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.