Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
  • Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)

The word is clear, the context is not. Again, to me that line simply means "The ship was designed to maneuver and fight in space." It in no way denies that the Halcyon class could land, with difficulty or some time taken.

Anyway, I just thought of proof that the larger ships CAN land. Not easily or quickly maybe, but they can.

PoA mission, you look out over the 'ship graveyard' You'll notice many larger hulks, Halcyon class cruisers. None are positioned as if they simply were slammed down into atmosphere and crashed. Likewise, none have the massive gorges in the terrain like the PoA did on alpha halo. From the simply fact those would be a -blam!- to airlift/drag across land, I can only assume they were landed there.

  • 05.11.2011 12:42 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

In all honesty it makes no sense to dismantle those ships on the planet's surface.

  • 05.11.2011 1:39 PM PDT

Fiftycal

I agree, you would honestly be better following Master Chiefs missions from The Fall of Reach, rather than falsify the main story. Be easier for Bungie to make it fit. But that may have been to weird of a transition for gamers of the halo games, having to switch gears and have some of the earliest Mjolnir armor. I don't know, just my opinion.

[Edited on 05.11.2011 2:54 PM PDT]

  • 05.11.2011 2:23 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: fiftycal koty
I agree, you would honestly be better following Master Chief through his training ,and other missions from The Fall of Reach, rather than falsify the main story. Be easier for Bungie to make it fit. But that may have been to weird of a transition for gamers of the halo games, having to switch gears and have some of the earliest Mjolnir armor. I don't know, just my opinion.

A straight rip of The Fall of Reach would've been incredibly boring and require an obscene amount of cutscenes.

  • 05.11.2011 2:25 PM PDT

Fiftycal

Im not saying every single thing said from the book and your right that would be extremely boring. i am talking about what master chief was doing at the time of reach and maybe even trailing to red team down on reach defending castle. I think it would make the events in Halo CE understandable to people who havent read the books.

[Edited on 05.11.2011 2:52 PM PDT]

  • 05.11.2011 2:51 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
A straight rip of The Fall of Reach would've been incredibly boring and require an obscene amount of cutscenes.

That would only be true for those who read the book, and even then I'm sure those who put time into the novels wouldn't mind seeing the events therein within a game. No different than fans of the Tolkien novels seeing Lord of the Rings in theaters.

  • 05.11.2011 3:22 PM PDT

I am the Sharpshooter

Posted by: privet caboose
Also, if you have any explanation to these canon errors, please, explain how they fit into canon, and the sources.


A nice summary of the big discrepencies. There is no real way to reconcile the book and the game cannon. Reach just takes the book cannon and tears it up which I think is a great shame. They could have made up an epic storyline within the confines of the book cannon.

  • 05.11.2011 3:23 PM PDT


Posted by: Spartan72 Chris
Posted by: privet caboose
Also, if you have any explanation to these canon errors, please, explain how they fit into canon, and the sources.


A nice summary of the big discrepencies. There is no real way to reconcile the book and the game cannon. Reach just takes the book cannon and tears it up which I think is a great shame. They could have made up an epic storyline within the confines of the book cannon.


No way... yet people like me and Coma have easily thought of ways.

  • 05.11.2011 4:08 PM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
If anything it is saying that, yes, it wasn't meant for atmospheric operation AKA - not rated for atmosphere. Not rated means not meant for. Just like certain ships aren't rated for beach landing in the Navy. This may not dispute the PoA's ability to land but with common sense if something is built in space and is made for space why would it ever have a need to land?


There's a big difference between something not being able to go somewhere, and something not going somewhere because it wouldn't perform optimally in that location or situation. Like a fighter plane can be of assistance in a forest ground battle, but it's really not meant for that which is why the Helicopters are better for taking out ground forces in jungle/forest locations. Same with the Autumn being in atmosphere is not where it will perform optimum efficiency, operations in atmosphere are the Frigates job because they're lighter and better suited for atmospheric engagements.

And being built in space doesn't mean it can't operate in or go into an atmosphere. Sure it's a different series, but the Enterprise was built in space, yet in the new movie it travels within the atmosphere of the Vulcan's planet when they're attempting to stop Nero from destroying it.

it isn't an opinion. These are the conflicts and you can't write off facts as opinion. Reach doesn't agree with much of the pre-established canon regardless of if that canon isn't game material. It is still hard canon. And if you think the errors with GoO and First Strike were fixed in the journal you either didn't read it carefully or didn't read it at all.

And the "size" of the part it disagrees with has no meaning. The book is title Fall of Reach, and the game conflicts with that books main subject matter aside from the Spartan II program (instead it just conflicts with the Spartan III program). You cannot equate the number of pages to the value of the content within. I could give you a letter of recommendation that was 500 pages long for a job but it wouldn't be nearly has important as that 3 page doctor's report that reveals you have cancer.


I was pointing out that saying Reach conflicts with the whole of TFoR (not saying you did or anything, but it's a claim I've seen) is not accurate because the account of the Battle of Reach takes up a very small portion of the book.

And I never said that Reach doesn't have conflicts with other sources. What I meant was that you're finding "canon breaks" that aren't even there to try and support the claim that Reach broke all pre-existing canon (which is itself a quite ludicrous claim). The only claim of conflict between Reach and Firt Strike/Ghost of Onyx that I can possibly think of is Halsey meeting Noble Team in Reach, and how things worked so that she was still in the dark about SIIIs in First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx was clearly explained in the Journal.

I have not read the Journal yet, but everything I've heard in regards to what it fixes I've heard from reliable sources and people I trust to have information that is fact based, I could provide better arguments if I had the Journal, but until then I make do with what I do know from my various sources.

  • 05.11.2011 4:18 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: OrderedComa
There's a big difference between something not being able to go somewhere, and something not going somewhere because it wouldn't perform optimally in that location or situation.

Absence of proof against is not proof for. You can't assume that because it doesn't explicitly say it will crash in the atmosphere of a planet that it wont. You are seriously grasping at the least likely possibility as if it is the obvious choice.

Posted by: OrderedComa
Like a fighter plane can be of assistance in a forest ground battle, but it's really not meant for that which is why the Helicopters are better for taking out ground forces in jungle/forest locations. Same with the Autumn being in atmosphere is not where it will perform optimum efficiency, operations in atmosphere are the Frigates job because they're lighter and better suited for atmospheric engagements.

This analogy makes no sense. It is more equivalent to flying a submarine.

Posted by: OrderedComa
And being built in space doesn't mean it can't operate in or go into an atmosphere. Sure it's a different series, but the Enterprise was built in space, yet in the new movie it travels within the atmosphere of the Vulcan's planet when they're attempting to stop Nero from destroying it.

Uh, no it doesn't. They are in a shuttle when that happens and they drop into the atmosphere from space. The Enterprise is not rated for atmosphere, not in the Original series and not in TNG (as proven by Star Trek Generations).

Posted by: OrderedComa
I was pointing out that saying Reach conflicts with the whole of TFoR (not saying you did or anything, but it's a claim I've seen) is not accurate because the account of the Battle of Reach takes up a very small portion of the book.

A very important part of the book. It conflicting with the book =/= the whole book. But it still does conflict directly with a major event.

Posted by: OrderedComa
And I never said that Reach doesn't have conflicts with other sources. What I meant was that you're finding "canon breaks" that aren't even there to try and support the claim that Reach broke all pre-existing canon (which is itself a quite ludicrous claim). The only claim of conflict between Reach and Firt Strike/Ghost of Onyx that I can possibly think of is Halsey meeting Noble Team in Reach, and how things worked so that she was still in the dark about SIIIs in First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx was clearly explained in the Journal.

When I site you a page that disagrees with Reach, that isn't "finding breaks that aren't even there".

Posted by: OrderedComa
I have not read the Journal yet, but everything I've heard in regards to what it fixes I've heard from reliable sources and people I trust to have information that is fact based, I could provide better arguments if I had the Journal, but until then I make do with what I do know from my various sources.

I've read the book, so until you've read it my opinion has more weight than yours. There are others who also say, including me, that the journal fixes little.

  • 05.11.2011 4:30 PM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K

Uh, no it doesn't. They are in a shuttle when that happens and they drop into the atmosphere from space. The Enterprise is not rated for atmosphere, not in the Original series and not in TNG (as proven by Star Trek Generations).


Actually, that's a poor comparison. The reason the saucer section crashed in the movie was because of the warp core explosion, it's engines were basically offline.

  • 05.11.2011 4:43 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Actually, that's a poor comparison. The reason the saucer section crashed in the movie was because of the warp core explosion, it's engines were basically offline.

Not exactly. That is the way it was supposed to operate:

"11.4 LANDING MODE

The Galaxy Class was designed to complete an emergency saucer landing. This is a one-way trip. Starfleet did not wish to incur the expense of doing a real world test, so until 2371 when the Enterprise-D completed this maneuver, it had never been done. Review of the Enterprise incident showed that it was a viable last resort option. Once down however, there is no going back. The saucer section is too large to return to orbit intact. Once landed the vessel will meet one of two fates. The first is to be slowly dismantled if the vessel landed on a friendly planet. The second fate is to be destroyed if the vessel landed in or near enemy territory."

Source

  • 05.11.2011 5:23 PM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Absence of proof against is not proof for. You can't assume that because it doesn't explicitly say it will crash in the atmosphere of a planet that it wont. You are seriously grasping at the least likely possibility as if it is the obvious choice.


And likewise you can't say with certainty that it will crash either, all we know is that a support role in atmosphere is not what the Autumn is meant for, that doesn't mean it can't fly into an atmosphere or land on a planet though.

This analogy makes no sense. It is more equivalent to flying a submarine.

Except a submarine is not an aircraft, it's not built for any sort of flying. The Autumn and ships similar to it are meant to fly, space just so happens to be their theater of operation, but we have no indication that any UNSC ship can't be in atmosphere.

Uh, no it doesn't. They are in a shuttle when that happens and they drop into the atmosphere from space. The Enterprise is not rated for atmosphere, not in the Original series and not in TNG (as proven by Star Trek Generations).

Are we even talking about the same Star Trek movie here? I'm talking about the 2009 movie, the Enterprise is in some atmosphere at some point in the movie as you see it up against a blue sky, last I checked space isn't blue.

A very important part of the book. It conflicting with the book =/= the whole book. But it still does conflict directly with a major event.

Most people talk as if it conflicts with the whole book, I was addressing a common misconception. It sure didn't feel very major to me, it felt more like Nylund suddenly realized near the end that he hadn't written anything regarding the book's title and then just threw something together almost as an ass-pull of any ending.

When I site you a page that disagrees with Reach, that isn't "finding breaks that aren't even there".

It is if either Halsey's Journal, marketing material released for Reach, or any other source explains whatever would have been a conflict. If it's explained it is no longer a conflict, and any claim that it is baseless.

I've read the book, so until you've read it my opinion has more weight than yours. There are others who also say, including me, that the journal fixes little.

Hardly, as I said, I may not have read it, but that doesn't make your opinion more valid than mine. I've talked with people who have read it and looked at the summary of its contents on Halopedia, and everything I've seen and heard shows it fixing a great deal.

  • 05.12.2011 7:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

Just popping my head in here.

to be honest someone that has read the material naturally tends to have a better understanding of the material than someone that hasn't. especially if the other person is trying to goo of halopedia.


And Halsey's journal doesn't really do anything to be honest. All it says is

- She knew something was being done with her spartans but didn't know what.

- Thought noble team was another group of SIIs

- stated that cortana had a clone made to study the random artifact (which in my eyes is still a mess and shouldn't have even been made up)

that is all it says

  • 05.12.2011 8:31 AM PDT

GROSSMAN: Do you think of the Culture as a utopia? Would you live in it, if you could?

BANKS: Good grief yes, to both! What's not to like? ...Well, unless you're actually a fascist or a power junkie or sincerely believe that money rather than happiness is what really matters in life. And even people with those bizarre beliefs are catered for in the Culture, albeit in extreme-immersion VR environments.

KOTOR

The Pillar of Autumn is 1.17 Kilometers long, 352 meters wide, and 414 meters high.

Lets calculate the volume of the PoA:

Length x width x height.

1170m x 352m x 414m = 170501760 meters squared.

That is the volume for a cuboid of equivalent dimensions, so lets knock off a couple of million for the design, and a few more million for the air inside the PoA, so we're left with 130000000m^2

The density of Titanium* is 4503Kg/m^3

Multiply that with the volume, 4503x130000000 and it equals:
5.8539x10^11, or 58539000000kg. That's 58539000 metric tons.

To give you a comparison, a blue whale weighs 2.7 metric tons, so the PoA weighs the same as 216811111.1 blue whales. Almost a quarter of a billon blue Whales.

Other facts, the power to weight ratio of the space shuttle is 138kW per kilogram, in laymans terms it needs 138000 pounds of thrust to lift one kilogram. How much does our PoA weigh? Oh yeah, 58539000000kg. Using today's rockets you would need 8.078382x10^16 pounds of thrust to take off.

Lets say that the boosters on the side of the PoA have a 4:1 power to weight ratio, like the thrusters on a Pelican. That's still ~2.34x10^12 pounds needed to lift the PoA, not including the power needed to lift the weight of the boosters themselves.

That is an insane amount of thrust. 234000000000 pounds to be exact. A Boeing 747-100 Pratt and Whitney JT9D Jet Engine generates 45800lb/f. When cruising a JT9D consumes 12,000 litres of fuel an hour.

To generate the thrust required using JT9D engines, you'd need 234000000000/45800 ~= 5109170 Jet engines.

12000 x 5109170 = 61310043600 litres of aviation fuel to lift the PoA. Yes, they wouldn't use Aviation fuel in the future.

The whole point of these rudimentary calculations is to prove a point. Landing the PoA and then having it take off again is stupid and unnecessary. It's too damn heavy, and those boosters would need a stupidly large amount of power, resulting in the whole operation expensive and unnecessary, when a simple Pelican would have sufficed.

  • 05.12.2011 12:03 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: OrderedComa
And likewise you can't say with certainty that it will crash either, all we know is that a support role in atmosphere is not what the Autumn is meant for, that doesn't mean it can't fly into an atmosphere or land on a planet though.

Pointless argument. The only thing the PoA has ever done in an atmosphere is crash. Sure, manuevering it may be possible but I doubt flying it is.

Except a submarine is not an aircraft, it's not built for any sort of flying. The Autumn and ships similar to it are meant to fly, space just so happens to be their theater of operation, but we have no indication that any UNSC ship can't be in atmosphere.
Except for The Flood stating it can't, and the fact that you don't "fly" in space. Space is closer to water than air.


Are we even talking about the same Star Trek movie here? I'm talking about the 2009 movie, the Enterprise is in some atmosphere at some point in the movie as you see it up against a blue sky, last I checked space isn't blue.

Check again, the ship was never in the atmosphere. You are seeing them drop INTO the atmosphere and the sky begins to turn blue as they do, which makes it appear that the Enterprise is in atmosphere. If the part I am assuming isn't the same Star Trek movie (aka J.J. Abrams version) then please tell me which one and what part so that I may go grab it and check for myself. But I can absolutely gaurantee that pretty much no Federation starships the size of the Enterprise are rated for flight within large gravity wells just as the book The Flood states it isn't rated for the same.

Keep in mind that the phrase "in atmosphere" has nothing to do with the atmosphere itself, but the gravity well of the planet being strong enough to move the object significantly. It is just usual that the atmosphere of a planet marks where that gravity well becomes significant enough for worry.


Most people talk as if it conflicts with the whole book, I was addressing a common misconception. It sure didn't feel very major to me, it felt more like Nylund suddenly realized near the end that he hadn't written anything regarding the book's title and then just threw something together almost as an ass-pull of any ending.

I thought it was fine. The Fall of Reach was not just about Reach. Many books are not necessarily going to include their title right away or even significantly. Hell, I just read Ben Bova's Moonwar and 90% of the book was talking, political negotiations and the like. Only a fraction of it even included any war and most of it was very subdued.

It is if either Halsey's Journal, marketing material released for Reach, or any other source explains whatever would have been a conflict. If it's explained it is no longer a conflict, and any claim that it is baseless.
It isn't explained. Read the journal or stop referencing it.

Hardly, as I said, I may not have read it, but that doesn't make your opinion more valid than mine. I've talked with people who have read it and looked at the summary of its contents on Halopedia, and everything I've seen and heard shows it fixing a great deal.
It is about first hand experience versus second hand experience. So mine has more weight in that context. Some people may have extrapolated on the journal's information. But the journal itself has little to do with fixing anything beyond what has been posted above by another member.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 1:01 PM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 12:59 PM PDT

A: The quote you said from the Flood said NOTHING about the PoA not being able to go into atmosphere or land. Just that is would be hard and it wasn't supposed to do it often.

B: I've read the journal, short of the issues being blown out of proportion by you all, it did explain, to me (Since I don't seem to freak out over tiny details...) how the book and game still matched.

  • 05.12.2011 1:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias

Honestly, I believe that Halo: Reach should be not considered as canon! It doesn't matter if Bungie says so, since they're finished with halo forever. It settles down to hands of 343i. I think they'll come to senses and declare that game is non-canon and only designed for casual experience and fun.

Besides, there's so many reasons to prove that Reach is canon-breaker.

First thing is that timeline seems so wrong. I understand that some could argue on that it lasted month after battle of reach (space) occurred. I agree but; it's supposed to show how those Humanity easily beaten back by Covenants in a day. Numbers and technology play major role in military conflict; since nearly 2/3rd of Fleet of Particular Justice were destroyed by those 20 ODPs and 150 warships. Leftovers basically mowed down remnants of UNSC fleet and ODPs. You see, their technology far surpasses the humanity's technology and UNSC needed 3:1 kill ratio to beat the Covenants in the space. If UNSC wanted to win against Covenants in space at Reach, I estimate UNSC would need about little over 250 warships, with support of 20 ODPs, would win with heavy losses. But it didn't happen. It just went down in a day.

And some people always say game canon beats book canon is retarded because book canon ALWAYS expand storyline of limited game canon can only tell limited story. And, book canon always override game canon for many reasons: description of SPARTANs, technology, military minds, etc so many to tell about. I can give you a example: Cyptum. It was set way back before Human-Covenant War occurred, basically explains about everything on Ancient Forerunners, early setting of Forerunner-Flood War, and little history about Humanity and other races.

Now, on about SPARTAN-III... Don't get me started, but THEY aren't supposed to be on Reach! They ARE stationed at Onyx, stated by the Ghosts of Onyx. That's why Reach campaign sucked for me and it became boring, repetitive and practical insult to the Halo Universe.

And, about on Pillar of Autumn, an Halcyon-class Cruiser being on the land and somehow magically gets off the ground; despite requiring massive amount of power to lift this heavy tonnage of cruiser. For god's sakes; do you guys know how this ships weigh?! How they can lift that with that sheer of power? I seriously doubt that this cruiser had anti-gravity technology on their ship. We have seen that Frigates were perfectly capable to hover in the atmosphere without any consequences. Well, they're far-better suited for atmosphere for several obvious reasons: Smaller mass, lighter weight, and most likely have anti-gravity technology only mastered for this frigate classes. Also Destroyers can fly in atmosphere as well, only being slightly bigger than frigates, nonetheless still small mass enough to be rated for atmosphere.

Besides, what the hell bungie are thinking? Reach is most powerful fortress and yet in this game; We only see is couple of frigates, a station, and farmland. Wtf? Reach is where HEAVY presence of UNSC Military forces, also not mention that there's UNSC High Command and military commanders of UNSC! Also, about LNoS, why the hell didn't ODPs or Reach's Fleet start to destroy ONE SUPERCARRIER effortlessly hovering above of the Reach?! That's why this Reach game (campaign-wise) sucked and should be not considered as CANON! Only good thing about Reach is: Multiplayer. That's it.

  • 05.12.2011 2:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

* raganok99


Spartan IIIs being on reach isn't a problem and was hypothesized before the game was even announced. It is just pointless playing as one because there isn't a difference game wise since you are using Mark V.

It would have been better if they were using SPI or some other non spartan II related armor so we could feel the difference.

You are right other than this part.

  • 05.12.2011 2:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: grey101
* raganok99


Spartan IIIs being on reach isn't a problem and was hypothesized before the game was even announced. It is just pointless playing as one because there isn't a difference game wise since you are using Mark V.

It would have been better if they were using SPI or some other non spartan II related armor so we could feel the difference.

You are right other than this part.


Or, we would play as Red Team defending the generators; then escorting Dr. Halsey to the CASTLE base and fight off against covenants until Master Chief with some men comes to rescue them with Ascendant Justice-Gettsyburg. It would be excellent storyline and possibly had won the GOTY awards, perhaps. It can happen such as switching to Blue Team or fight in the space, fly as sabres to defend the UNSC fleet or ODPs or play as ODST for short time; before being overrun by massive covenant armies going to generators. SPARTAN-IIIs can be included such as playing one mission at ONYX then switch back to Reach or something. Idk what to pick lol.

  • 05.12.2011 2:16 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
A: The quote you said from the Flood said NOTHING about the PoA not being able to go into atmosphere or land. Just that is would be hard and it wasn't supposed to do it often.

B: I've read the journal, short of the issues being blown out of proportion by you all, it did explain, to me (Since I don't seem to freak out over tiny details...) how the book and game still matched.

A. It stated it would be "no easy task", a phrase that usually means something along the lines of "we shouldn't do this normally". It says nothing of the frequency either, you are just adding in possibilities on top of the quote. Here is the context immediately relating to the quote and includes the quote:

"Their next task was to take the Autumn down into the atmosphere. No small order considering the fact that, like all vessels of her tonnage, the cruiser had been constructed in zero-gee conditions and wasn't equipped to operate in a planetary atmosphere.

Keyes believed it was possible. With that in mind, he planned to close with the ring world, hand control to the subroutine that Cortana had left for that purpose, and use the last lifeboat to make his escape. Maybe the ship would pancake the way he planned - and maybe it wouldn't. Whatever the case, it was almost sure to be a landing that would best be experienced from a safe distance."

pg.40, The Flood.

B. Without detail then there is a problem. You are merely assuming that things were fixed because the journal says so.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 2:25 PM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 2:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: grey101
* raganok99


Spartan IIIs being on reach isn't a problem and was hypothesized before the game was even announced. It is just pointless playing as one because there isn't a difference game wise since you are using Mark V.

It would have been better if they were using SPI or some other non spartan II related armor so we could feel the difference.

You are right other than this part.


Or, we would play as Red Team defending the generators; then escorting Dr. Halsey to the CASTLE base and fight off against covenants until Master Chief with some men comes to rescue them with Ascendant Justice-Gettsyburg. It would be excellent storyline and possibly had won the GOTY awards, perhaps. It can happen such as switching to Blue Team or fight in the space, fly as sabres to defend the UNSC fleet or ODPs or play as ODST for short time; before being overrun by massive covenant armies going to generators. SPARTAN-IIIs can be included such as playing one mission at ONYX then switch back to Reach or something. Idk what to pick lol.


Spartan IIIs at reach isn't an issue, the only ones that were at reach were the honor spartans. It isn't an issue so please stop bringing it up.

bungie has this "thing" with creating pointless new things instead of going with something more logical.

They removed the spectre and created the prowler (which is the brute form of the same dame thing).
They won't even bring the assault rifle back to its CE justice so they made the SMG, then they put both the ar and smg in the same game (pointless)

It goes on and on. half of the issues could be fixed if they just put everything in customs or matchmaking but for some reason they don't.

And i am going to stop now because i am about to start raging and ranting.

  • 05.12.2011 2:25 PM PDT

"What do you hear?"
"Nothing but the rain."
"Then grab your gun and bring in the cat."
"Boom, boom, boom!"

Posted by: grey101
Spartan IIIs at reach isn't an issue, the only ones that were at reach were the honor spartans. It isn't an issue so please stop bringing it up.


This. That issue has been explained away in both cases. All members of Noble Team (save Jorge) are Alpha and Beta class who were pulled out before the operations that killed their respective companies.

Not only that, but wasn't most of Gamma Company deployed before Reach fell, leaving only a few of them on Onyx?

Posted by: grey101
And i am going to stop now because i am about to start raging and ranting.


But that would be so much fun! XD

  • 05.12.2011 2:37 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: kit_103
This. That issue has been explained away in both cases. All members of Noble Team (save Jorge) are Alpha and Beta class who were pulled out before the operations that killed their respective companies.

Which disagrees with book evidence. The number of Spartan III's in Beta was exactly 300, stated by Tom himself. So how can 300 die if they were removed from the mission? It would make more sense if another program took the Spartan III augmentation system and applied it differently to create Noble. Still, removing them from deadly ops before they happen doesn't really make any logical sense. It defeats the purpose of the III's in the first place.

Posted by: kit_103
Not only that, but wasn't most of Gamma Company deployed before Reach fell, leaving only a few of them on Onyx?

No, most of Gamma deployed directly AFTER Reach, not before. About a week if I remember correctly.

  • 05.12.2011 2:45 PM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Pointless argument. The only thing the PoA has ever done in an atmosphere is crash. Sure, manuevering it may be possible but I doubt flying it is.


Alpha Halo is a completely different scenario than landing a ship such as the Autumn on a UNSC controlled planet under normal circumstances. It would be hard because they don't have any equipment to help it land. And the landing in CE was hardly a crash, it was glided in, which (to me) implies that it can fly in the atmosphere, it was simply out of the ordinary circumstances and a proper landing was out of the question, so it they had to make a crash landing, much like a a plane having to land in a large, empty field.

Except for The Flood stating it can't, and the fact that you don't "fly" in space. Space is closer to water than air.

Except the Flood didn't say anything of the sort. I'd consider space more of a mix between the two really, but w/e, this is kind of irrelevant :P

Check again, the ship was never in the atmosphere. You are seeing them drop INTO the atmosphere and the sky begins to turn blue as they do, which makes it appear that the Enterprise is in atmosphere. If the part I am assuming isn't the same Star Trek movie (aka J.J. Abrams version) then please tell me which one and what part so that I may go grab it and check for myself. But I can absolutely gaurantee that pretty much no Federation starships the size of the Enterprise are rated for flight within large gravity wells just as the book The Flood states it isn't rated for the same.

Keep in mind that the phrase "in atmosphere" has nothing to do with the atmosphere itself, but the gravity well of the planet being strong enough to move the object significantly. It is just usual that the atmosphere of a planet marks where that gravity well becomes significant enough for worry.


I'm talking about the J.J. Abrams version. And I distinctly remember the Enterprise being inside the atmosphere of the Vulcan's planet.

I thought it was fine. The Fall of Reach was not just about Reach. Many books are not necessarily going to include their title right away or even significantly. Hell, I just read Ben Bova's Moonwar and 90% of the book was talking, political negotiations and the like. Only a fraction of it even included any war and most of it was very subdued.

Well I didn't think it was fine, the flow into the Battle of Reach was executed rather poorly, imo. No, but with most books I've read the title figures a lot into the plot even if a specific event it mentions does not occur 'til later. And I'm pretty sure that's the norm for the majority of books. TFoR, it just didn't do that, and I think it suffered a bit for that.
And from the sounds of the book you are mentioning it sounds like what I was talking about earlier, there would be mentions of preventing a moon war or events that inevitably, and obviously, bring the war about. But I really can't say for certain since I haven't read it.

It isn't explained. Read the journal or stop referencing it.

I can reference it all I want or need. As I said, sources I trust, both people I know, and reading the summary of the Journal on Halopedia, which corelates with what I've learned from people I know, are what have led to that conclusion and claim. It's not the same as reading the Journal, no, but that does not make your opinion more valid because you were already biased against Reach. I may be biased toward the opinion that Reach didn't break canon, but I didn't start that way, I was willing to explore options and see how things still fit together (if they did) and I know that they can and do fit.

  • 05.12.2011 4:15 PM PDT