Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Whats up with the UNSC Scorpion?
  • Subject: Whats up with the UNSC Scorpion?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Whats up with the UNSC Scorpion?
  • 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: Nocbl2

Posted by: A Puzzled Mind
Wow...the people on this forum are not very bright...

I encourage you people to know what the -blam!- you're talking about before replying with bull--blam!- answers like "light main battle tank".

Only an idiot would try to claim a main battle tank can be a light tank. It's a MBT for reason.

Secondly, only a moron would classify a 66 ton tank as a light tank.

Thirdly, the Scorpion tank is quite frankly an ill-though out and poorly designed piece of crap. For God's sake, it was designed by a game developer who clearly had no idea what real tanks are like.

As to the OP, your grievances are legitimate. Unfortunately, like so many areas in the Halo universe, common sense and competence is severely lacking.
Definitely agree with you on it NOT being a light tank. I mean, you could fit two Warthogs side by side and not even meet the edge of its breadth.

Honestly though, I would say the Scorpion does a pretty good job against the Wraith. Granted, the Covenant don't have any tanks, and the only thing close is an artillery unit, but seriously, you only need 1 person to drive and fire, and it reloads pretty darn fast. Having the huge box of tungsten ammunition sitting outside and vulnerable to enemy fire does seem like another detriment, but honestly I'd take a Scorpion any day.


NOTE: It takes two to three hits to destroy a Wraith. Just reminding you.

anish panchalin


would everyone shut up about the damn M1 Abrams being better than the scorpion...its just a videogame sheesh


Sure, it is a video game but, it has proven that Abrams is better than Scorpion until new information on Scorpion comes out.

[Edited on 08.15.2011 8:16 AM PDT]

  • 08.15.2011 8:15 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

I understand nothing because my life is a conspiracy.

Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.

  • 08.15.2011 8:18 AM 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: lime013
Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.


Indeed, that's one of those reasons. However, Halo: The Flood says that it takes two-three hits to destroy the Wraith so we can use that info from novel book instead of gameplay mechanics in the video game.

  • 08.15.2011 8:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: A Puzzled Mind
Wow...the people on this forum are not very bright...

I encourage you people to know what the -blam!- you're talking about before replying with bull--blam!- answers like "light main battle tank".

Only an idiot would try to claim a main battle tank can be a light tank. It's a MBT for reason.

Secondly, only a moron would classify a 66 ton tank as a light tank.

Thirdly, the Scorpion tank is quite frankly an ill-though out and poorly designed piece of crap. For God's sake, it was designed by a game developer who clearly had no idea what real tanks are like.

As to the OP, your grievances are legitimate. Unfortunately, like so many areas in the Halo universe, common sense and competence is severely lacking.


an angry nerd has spoken

  • 08.15.2011 8:35 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: lime013
Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.


Indeed, that's one of those reasons. However, Halo: The Flood says that it takes two-three hits to destroy the Wraith so we can use that info from novel book instead of gameplay mechanics in the video game.


Does it take two-three in the novel? I could've sworn that one direct hit was enough to destroy a Wraith in that novel...

In any case I can't wait until people start getting down to discussing how impractical the Grizzy tank is as well.

  • 08.15.2011 8:43 AM 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: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: lime013
Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.


Indeed, that's one of those reasons. However, Halo: The Flood says that it takes two-three hits to destroy the Wraith so we can use that info from novel book instead of gameplay mechanics in the video game.


Does it take two-three in the novel? I could've sworn that one direct hit was enough to destroy a Wraith in that novel...

In any case I can't wait until people start getting down to discussing how impractical the Grizzy tank is as well.


It does. It said that a Zealot was standing with his offier during raid on UNSC's convoy and array of Scorpions fired on wraiths and two shots hit a wraith and destroying it.

  • 08.15.2011 8:44 AM PDT

http://thelivegenerator.com/?r=700576

  • 08.15.2011 8:45 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: lime013
Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.

Indeed, that's one of those reasons. However, Halo: The Flood says that it takes two-three hits to destroy the Wraith so we can use that info from novel book instead of gameplay mechanics in the video game.


Does it take two-three in the novel? I could've sworn that one direct hit was enough to destroy a Wraith in that novel...

In any case I can't wait until people start getting down to discussing how impractical the Grizzy tank is as well.


It does. It said that a Zealot was standing with his offier during raid on UNSC's convoy and array of Scorpions fired on wraiths and two shots hit a wraith and destroying it.




Does it actually say that those two shots were required to destroy the wraith or that, in a volley of shots, two happened to hit a single wraith which then proceeded to blow up.

There's a very distinct difference between the two. If it's the former then yes it would take more than one individual shot to destroy a Wraith. If it's the latter then it does not in the slightest bit confirm that it required two shots to down a wraith. Instead it just points out it happened to get hit by two shots when it was destroyed.

An exact passage from the book would be nice to confirm it.

[Edited on 08.15.2011 8:52 AM PDT]

  • 08.15.2011 8:51 AM 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: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: lime013
Bungie wanted to make everything balanced, not a magical flying tank shooting lasers and blowing up half the map.

Indeed, that's one of those reasons. However, Halo: The Flood says that it takes two-three hits to destroy the Wraith so we can use that info from novel book instead of gameplay mechanics in the video game.


Does it take two-three in the novel? I could've sworn that one direct hit was enough to destroy a Wraith in that novel...

In any case I can't wait until people start getting down to discussing how impractical the Grizzy tank is as well.


It does. It said that a Zealot was standing with his offier during raid on UNSC's convoy and array of Scorpions fired on wraiths and two shots hit a wraith and destroying it.




Does it actually say that those two shots were required to destroy the wraith or that, in a volley of shots, two happened to hit a single wraith which then proceeded to blow up.

There's a very distinct difference between the two. If it's the former then yes it would take more than one individual shot to destroy a Wraith. If it's the latter then it does not in the slightest bit confirm that it required two shots to down a wraith. Instead it just points out it happened to get hit by two shots when it was destroyed.

An exact passage from the book would be nice to confirm it.


And a reply to your comment on people complaining about grizzly, I don't think it will happen since Grizzly uses dual 120mm high velocity cannon which it is more powerful than scorpion's 90mm cannon. So I can safely say that Grizzly can take down wraith in one shot, possibly two. (although it may be speculating)

  • 08.15.2011 8:53 AM PDT

No matter how -BLAMY- you think the tank is, the more you have the better chance you have at beating the enemey so everyone I just ended this thread. :) lol

  • 08.15.2011 9:13 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: raganok99

And a reply to your comment on people complaining about grizzly, I don't think it will happen since Grizzly uses dual 120mm high velocity cannon which it is more powerful than scorpion's 90mm cannon. So I can safely say that Grizzly can take down wraith in one shot, possibly two. (although it may be speculating)


I doubt that firepower in itself would ever be a point of contention for the Grizzly. Instead I would imagine that any debate surrounding it would be focused on how practical or impractical of a design choice it is to have a tank with more armor than a Scorpion, another barrel, and the capacity to carry around ammunition for both those barrels at its caliber. Weight and its subsequent mobility would be suspect, particularly when you already have people here going on about aspects of the Scorpion like its engine power being wholly underpowered by today's standards.

  • 08.15.2011 9:19 AM PDT


Posted by: StealthSlasher2

Posted by: raganok99

And a reply to your comment on people complaining about grizzly, I don't think it will happen since Grizzly uses dual 120mm high velocity cannon which it is more powerful than scorpion's 90mm cannon. So I can safely say that Grizzly can take down wraith in one shot, possibly two. (although it may be speculating)


I doubt that firepower in itself would ever be a point of contention for the Grizzly. Instead I would imagine that any debate surrounding it would be focused on how practical or impractical of a design choice it is to have a tank with more armor than a Scorpion, another barrel, and the capacity to carry around ammunition for both those barrels at its caliber. Weight and its subsequent mobility would be suspect, particularly when you already have people here going on about aspects of the Scorpion like its engine power being wholly underpowered by today's standards.


The grizzly sports a fifth tread between the back two ones if you've never noticed.

  • 08.15.2011 9:32 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3