This is the talk page for M-29 Incisor.
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.

Incisor damage modifier is 1.25 against armor, barriers and shields.

The data was passed from Christina Norman, from Bioware: Brfritos 07:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Rog-O! Thanks for updating the info! :) SpartHawg948 07:52, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the Incisor benefits at all from sniper rife upgrades? Because the weapon designation does not change like other rifles eg M-29a.

I've noticed its been pretty effective in the early game in the hands of Garrus or Zaeed since ammo isn't an issue for them, but it will eventually lose relevance if it can't be upgraded.7Delta 04:07, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well according to Christina Norman the bug is only in the naming, not the performance so I'm going to add this to the notes

7Delta 11:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


I see the trigger guard (in our picture, to the lower left of the orange lights in the middle of the gun), but it looks like it lacks an actual trigger. Am I just seeing things or what? In other news, I love this gun. I'm an Infiltrator and it and the Phalanx are a formidable duo of whoop ass. Tanooki1432 17:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

No I don't believe so as I can't see a trigger either. It may use a different system like touching the back of the guard or something instead. But there is no trigger there. Lancer1289 17:52, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I asked about this on Bioware Social Network. Some helpful person sent a high resolution picture that shows the trigger. Katamariguy 8:58 GMT April 19, 2011

Knockdown? Edit

I've found that on harder difficulties (most notably Haestrom when doing it on Hardcore to get the GPR) and sometimes on lower difficulties if I don't get a triple hit on the head, enemies sometimes get knocked down by this gun. I don't know if it's just Garrus hitting with a Concussion Shot at the same time my shots are hitting, me shooting Geth with Disrupter Ammo, or something else. Can anyone else confirm that this gun tends to knock enemies down or that I'm just being delusional? Tanooki1432 12:45, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. It really is quite amusing to watch a Geth Trooper flipping backwards over a crate, however, it could indeed be an effect of Disruptor Ammo. Not sure whether this should be mentioned in Trivia or Player Notes. Tali's no.1 fan 14:49, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Base Damage Stat Edit

We have the base damage stat listed as 53.6. Is that for each individual bullet fired (thus a sucessful triple tap would result in 160.8 base damage) or when all 3 shots connect (thus each individual bullet does 17.8 damage)? Tanooki1432 16:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Or am I like the only person who uses this gun? If no one knows, can someone tell me a way I can find out? Tanooki1432 16:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well I can answer one question, you aren't the only one who uses it. Ever since the Aegis Pack came out, I've been using it as well. However I don't know about the stat damage because I don't know where it came from. I wish I could help with that one. However I would have to guess from my expieriences that it is probably if all three connect, however that is my guess. Lancer1289 16:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that the Base Damage stat assumes all rounds connect. How else can the stat exist for Full-Auto weapons like ARs and SMGs? A couple quick calculations will show that the Mantis would do 2,631 damage assuming full ammo, and all rounds hit an unprotected body. If the Base Damage is the damage for all three rounds connecting, then the Incisor only does 804 damage. Even with the 25% bonus vs Shields/Barriers, that only means 1,005 total damage for all 45 rounds fired. If the Base Damage stat means "Per Bullet", then the Incisor damage recalculates to 2,412; a MUCH more reasonable number. And, it stands to reason that since the weapon was designed to "decimate shields (1.25x vs Shields,)" the bonus would increase damage to 3,015, versus the Mantis' 2,631. --Shorrrt 03:17, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The info comes from the BIOweapon.ini for the Incisor. The "damage" line apparently expresses the damage per round, and there's a "BurstRounds" line which expresses the rounds per burst. --AnotherRho 06:21, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

M-29 designation not changing isn't a bug Edit

The article states that "Like the Collector Assault Rifle the Incisor does not change its name designation like other weapons when upgrades are researched, according to Christina Norman this is a bug that applies to DLC , but only affects the name and performance is in fact upgraded." This isn't true.

Is you have a look at the unpacked DLC_6_INT.tlk file (a smaller version of the main Biogame_INT.tlk file) you'll see the following data:

       <data><CUSTOM1>-1<CUSTOM0> Incisor Sniper Rifle</data>


       <data>M-29 Incisor Sniper Rifle</data>

So what does this mean? In the BioWeapon.ini file as part of the Incisor DLC, you'll see


PrettyName=351642 IconRef=2 GeneralDescription=351643 ShortDescription=351820 GUIImage="GUI_SF_DLC_PRE_Incisor.InsisorSniperRifle_512"

Note the "PrettyName" number designation - it's pointing to the M-29 designator. All Bioware had to do to make the M-29 change to S-29, X-29 etc was to do two things. First, change the first text block from "<CUSTOM1>-1<CUSTOM0> Incisor Sniper Rifle" to "<CUSTOM1>-29<CUSTOM0> Incisor Sniper Rifle"; and secondly to change the line "PrettyName=351642" to "PrettyName=314326".

Oh and if you're wondering, yes I've changed it myself, and yes it works. No idea why Bioware didn't do it, but it's NOT a bug, it was deliberate. --Captain Obvious au 16:56, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

~~ Perhaps you could put out a small patch that would correct this "bug" with all of the weapons that it currently effects? I know many of us would appreciate it. Especially those who either do not know how to edit the necessary files. --Shorrrt 17:09, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ok two things. One: I'm much more willing to believe a developer than you right now given your past actions.

Second as to the patch, we wouldn't support that here as it is a mod and not from BioWare. I personally believe that it is a bug. Lancer1289 17:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

~Shorrrt - I can do that, it's a very simple change actually.

Lancer - you don't have to believe me, look at the data, it speaks for itself. Both text blocks exist in the same file, and I'm talking about the original Incisor DLC for the Digital version, so the text was available for Bioware to use from the start. Even if you're happy with the M-1 designation, all Bioware needed to do to change the designation so that it conforms to the rest of the weapon designations was to change the six number 'PrettyName' designator. They quite obviously chose not to. Again though, feel free to look at the data yourself, don't take my word for it. --Captain Obvious au 18:16, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... just to point out in the interests of accuracy... the in-article text is not, as has been suggested, false. After all, the article doesn't say that the designation not changing is a bug, just that, according to a BioWare staffer it's a bug. Let's actually read what things say before declaring that something "isn't true". SpartHawg948 18:20, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying Spart is that the whole 'it's a bug' thing is wrong, the data clearly proves that. --Captain Obvious au 03:26, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
I understand this, which is why A) I never contested it, and B) I don't need it explained to me. What I was pointing out is that the statement:
"The article states that "Like the Collector Assault Rifle the Incisor does not change its name designation like other weapons when upgrades are researched, according to Christina Norman this is a bug that applies to DLC , but only affects the name and performance is in fact upgraded." This isn't true."
Is itself, not true. SpartHawg948 03:27, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Perhaps then the article could be changed to something like "Like the Collector Assault Rifle the Incisor does not change its name designation like other weapons when upgrades are researched, according to Christina Norman this is a bug that applies to DLC , but only affects the name and performance is in fact upgraded. However this appears in the text files to be a deliberate decision." --Captain Obvious au 08:44, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Buh? Why is that? Because a string that has a similar name (but incorrect #-1 designation) exists and can be hacked in? Not even close to enough evidence to establish that they deliberately used a non-changing designation for the weapon. That the lead gameplay designer specifically called it a bug is a very big strike against that theory. Why would they tell falsehoods related to that? A much more plausible explanation (IMO, anyway) is that it was simply a mistake that sprang from a rookie being assigned to make that piece of DLC work, and he didn't know about the changing designation syntax. Or that it was designed very early, before the upgraded designations were thought of. That is to say: it seems far more likely that the unchanging designation for the weapon was a mistake (some might say, a bug), and not some deliberate decision that they later waved away as a bug.
Note that I'm not suggesting that this theory be added to the article either, because it's just as speculative as yours. I believe that it should remain as-is, containing only the information we have as confirmed from a developer (i.e. sourced from a reliable authority). Re-writes could always be done, of course, but including speculation as to the reason for the bug, especially when it directly contradicts statements that come straight from a high-up developer, would be a mistake. -- Dammej (talk) 09:24, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
So Dammej, essentially what you're saying is that (1) you presenting zero evidence makes your argument as justified as my evidence-backed one, and (2) that the developers are 100% correct 100% of the time? Sorry, but if you'd seen the evidence I presented, you'd see that your theory is incorrect.
Firstly, let's look at the text file for the Incisor Digital Deluxe DLC. There are two clear strings here - one uses the custom tags (which represent the M-, S-, and X- designators at the front; and the a, b, c etc designators at the back. This one however has the Incisor called the M/S/X-1. The next string labels it clearly, and only, as the M-29. This shoots down your theories that the person writing it didn't know about the syntax, and or that it was before they came up with the changing designation system.
Now I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake on someones behalf, it's possible. BUT it was one they'd have picked up very quickly, and one that is very easily fixed, I even did it myself. Plus, since they have the normal syntax in the designation that is unused but not the one they do use, it seems clear that they deliberately chose NOT to include the normal syntax for the Incisor for whatever reason. Now if you want to argue I'm wrong, be my guest. But I've presented significant evidence here, so please do the same if you're going to rebut me. Otherwise your objections are invalid. --Captain Obvious au 16:34, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
My objection isn't based on whether my speculation is valid, it's just to point out that yours makes a leap of logic that I'm not prepared to accept. Given two opposing theories (1) Developer: This was a bug (2) Intelligent investigating fan of the game: This was a deliberate decision, option (1) is going to win out every time, unless the evidence is significant enough to show that the statement coming from the developer was indeed in error. And I frankly don't think that you've presented enough evidence to that end. Perhaps if there was a comment in the file that said "Use this string, there are issues with using the custom designator on this weapon" or something to that effect, we might be able to establish intention. As it is currently though, we have no way to divine what a developer was thinking when choosing one style over another. Without that information, we can only go by what they have to say. And what they have to say is: it's a bug. -- Dammej (talk) 18:23, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dammej. After reading this conversation carefully, your (Captain Obvious au) conclusion is based on your opinion, and that always looses when we have official, a.k.a. developer information, which is fact. Opinions are very tricky things, which is what your theory is backed up by, your opinions and your conclusions. I can also see this as more of a bug, than your theory of something deliberate. Without any sort of omnipotence on this, which no one has, we have to take what the developers say and that is that this is a bug, and not something deliberately done, which is again based entirely on your opinions and conclusions. Lancer1289 18:36, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Just so that I don't appear to be daft, Captain Obvious au, I'm with you right up until the last step here:
  1. Two strings exist that appear to describe the Incisor Rifle
  2. String A will use a dynamic designator that changes based on upgrades.
  3. String B is a static designator that does not change based on upgrades.
  4. String B is used to display the weapon's name everywhere in the game
  5. The decision to use string B was a deliberate one.
It's quite clear why the designator doesn't change, as you've shown. I'm just not prepared to accept a statement that calls this decision a deliberate one. The only reason I won't accept it is precisely because it's already been called a bug by a developer: One who, as a developer of the game, is in a much better position to be able to tell us the reasons that something was chosen. -- Dammej (talk) 18:55, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Dammej does (as usual) make a compelling argument here. SpartHawg948 21:28, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a look at this and Captain Obvious au is right about the fix. I've tried it myself and it does work. As Captain Obvious au is probably aware as well, it seems fixing just the file DLC_6_INT.tlk isn't enough to get the weapon name to show up properly if several DLCs were installed. It looks like the programmers at Bioware saved time with the TLK files by copy pasting and adding their own revisions to the file before sending it off to the next DLC. In total, in my build at least, I had to replace 4 different TLK files from 4 different DLCs in order to get the name to show up properly since they all had the same Incisor name error.
It is likely the problem stemmed from an error with the original TLK for the Incisor. Programmers just copy pasted this error to so many other DLCs that patching this bug would take too much time. They would have to sort through every TLK they've made just to fix it when their time could be spent elsewhere.
However, on the off chance that a Bioware programmer reads this, I found the error in the following DLCs:
  1. Digital Deluxe Incisor (DLC_6_INT.tlk) *I don't own it but Captain Obvious au does.
  2. Aegis Pack (DLC_11_INT.tlk)
  3. Firepower Pack (DLC_12_INT.tlk)
  4. Overlord (DLC_20_INT.tlk)
  5. Lair of the Shadow Broker (DLC_24_INT.tlk)
I don't own the Equalizer Pack so I'm not sure if that DLC has it as well. Freakium 23:43, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I wonder why there's so much duplication of data?
Coming back to this, I would like to offer an alternate addition to the note in the article, lest I appear to simply be a force against change. Captain Obvious au clearly put a good amount of effort into tracking down the bug, so I think we might consider adding an explanation to the article. Perhaps something along the line of... "Like the Collector Assault Rifle the Incisor does not change its name designation like other weapons when upgrades are researched, according to Christina Norman this is a bug that applies to DLC, but only affects the name and performance is in fact upgraded. This is caused by an incorrectly formatted string in the DLC files."
It avoids my objection (calling it a deliberate difference), so I'd be ok with it. What do others think? Revisions always welcome, of course.-- Dammej (talk) 01:23, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SpartHawg948 01:26, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know, it's all a little technical for my tastes, but in all honesty, whatever. Lancer1289 01:38, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Demmej - I can see your point, though I still disagree. Call me a cynic, but when I hear developers call any error a 'bug' I wonder if they've actually looked into it, or just don't want to explain why it really isn't working properly. After all, it's rare that anyone will actually answer with "oh sorry, we stuffed up". With the logic tree you presented, that's essentially my thought process and I stand by its accuracy. The problem I encounter is that when faced with the evidence, what other logical explanation exists? As I said before, it can't be that the person didn't know about the custom coding, or that it was before the custom coding. Freakium has also noted that the same error with the Incisor is repeated on numerous occasions - surely they would have fixed it by now if it was a bug? They definately know about it, yet are doing nothing to fix it.
Lancer - not true. My conclusion is based on facts in evidence, it's quite clear when I've come from. Christina Normans statement though is completely unsupported. Sure, her word is worth more than mine in this case, but all she said was "oh yeah, it's a bug". No information about how it happened; if and when they'll fix it etc. I'm wondering then how a developers word is worth more than cold hard evidence?
Freakium - yes, the error is in the Equalizer Pack too. Funnily enough though it doesn't appear in LotSB as an error. By this I mean the custom (M-1) title appears, but the ID code is wrong, so the game won't use it.
Anyway the change is acceptable to me as present by Dammej, if anyone wants to edit it in. --Captain Obvious au 10:34, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) You are, of course, free to disagree. But consider, what else is calling something a bug but an admission of 'stuffing up' something? One goal in development to minimize bugs, after all. I want to clear something up too, since you seem to think that it's Christina Norman's word vs your Cold Hard Facts, and her word is winning. I don't think that's the case at all. No one is disputing that your evidence clearly describes both the bug and how to fix it. Where we differ is in the language used to describe what we're seeing. You're saying, well look right here, there's clearly something amiss, and it looks like some decision making went into picking this erroneous string, so it must have been a cognizant choice. I see it as Christina Norman having looked through the same source and saying, "Ah crap, someone reintroduced that old string into the source with the latest merge of the source code. Oh well, product is already shipped and it's not a game-breaking bug. Not worth the effort it fix it." Just a hypothetical, of course.

Point is, I imagine she looked at the same thing that you did and came to the conclusion that it was indeed a goof on their part. Bugs can, after all, be known but not fixed. It is a sad reality of software development that some things must simply remain unfixed due to time/business constraints. Fixing this bug would require a title update on all platforms, which they wouldn't want to push out unless it contained a significant number of other fixes that were much more important than this one. There may also be other complications associated with releasing patches for the 360. (I'm assuming there's some QA that needs to be done on MS's end, etc). These are perfectly reasonable explanations for why the bug has not been fixed. More might even exist, but I'm ignorant of them because I've never done development using the Unreal Engine. It all boils down to worth, though. In the end, someone, somewhere in BW has determined that the cost of fixing the bug outweighs the benefit of it. It does kinda suck, yeah, but that's the reality of doing business. We can be happy that they've avoided the same issue with all of the new DLC weapons they've released since then, though, so perhaps there's some new step in the QA process in place that specifically tests to ensure that the string reflects upgrades.

Since the change I've proposed seems to have general support from parties involved in the discussion, I will take the liberty of adding it to the article. -- Dammej (talk) 17:47, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ammo pickup Edit

After finally using this weapon a little longer, I've found that the thermal clip amount was actually 2-5 shots as opposed to 2-4 in the article. I picked up 2 shots from dropped thermal clips and 5 shots from in-map or environmental thermal clips. Can anyone else confirm this? Freakium 06:56, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, ammo found lying around does give 5 shots. Tali's no.1 fan 15:51, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Mass effect 3 Sniper Rifle? Edit

The rifle used by the soldier in the Mass Effect 3 trailer looks quite similar to the M29. Anybody else agree? -- 18:32, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

I believe the words are "looks quite similar". However the weapon only fires one shot, not three, and a clip is ejected immediately. Maybe it is a variant, but right now, I'm not willing to say beyond a doubt that it is the M-29. It might be a rifle that is similar in design as well. Lancer1289 18:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lancer on this one, but it is there in multiplayer. My friend acquired it through the veteran pack before we got off tonight. --This text has been approved by Murfitizer 05:10, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

How does it perform in multiplayer? I recently found one as well but I have been playing engineer so I ca't tell TheRealTerminal 21:24, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty shitty, if not useless.--Psysteel 14:09, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
You might want to watch the language. The admins can be very strict about it (See policy here). Trandra 15:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
For people who know about firearms, it's supposed to be like the real life AN-94, which fires two rounds so fast there's no recoil after the first shot. It pretty much did this in Mass Effect 2, but in 3 it's kind of like the Argus, slow rate of fire and lots of recoil, so it's extremely bad at exactly what it's supposed to be good at. :/ Alex T Snow 07:08, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.