Talk:Halo: Reach/Archive 2

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Halo Reach Beta

According to the Bungie, the Halo: Reach Xbox LIVE Multiplayer Beta begins on May 3rd, 2010.

Thank you for the information.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:24, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Already put up Beta launch date and Reach box art up. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Jacket

On the jacket we only see 5 spartans but we all know that noble team have 6 members. So why do you think they only put 5 spartans on the jacket? CF0UoH/A Company|0]]1 18:59, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

There are only five members on the box/cover art because Bungie intends Noble Six to be a completely blank character, even more so than The Rookie, leaving even gender unconfirmed. Noble Team are the main characters, with Six intended to be the player themselves, experiencing the game as if they were actually there. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:05, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think reach is gonna be great I enjoyed every halo out can't wait!

Stay on topic, and sign your postsWarhead xTEAMx 20:06, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

How?

How when the full game is out how are we going to explain the story canonicly? Because Noble six is a "Blank Slate" and some parts of the story are freeform :S --II Helljumper II 19:12, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

The game is set for a Fall 2010 release, and Bungie is not going Mass Effect/GTA and various others and having a multiple story scenario. Only Six's character is "blank" so the player can associate themselves with him or her. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:22, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Halopedia will only accept the Flat Black-armored Noble Six as canon. Anything else, and that's in your Halo universe. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Brutes?

We have no proof of brutes, yeah in the new vid it shows brute armor already seen, and possibly concept art inspiration for the elites of Reach. Not proof.--Lekgolo 05:10, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the new Brutes, they look too dumb and not Brutish get what i mean?Jay96 11:17, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well Bungie may place them in Reach as another set of enemies, but if they do its unlikely they will be together with the elites. But it would be possible that the Brutes are also on reach as they have attacked different planets as well.Spartan Ambose 08:11, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure they were part of the invasion. Just because it's a Sangheili-run fleet doesn't mean that no Jiralhanae were there, just that they weren't commanding any ships. Footsoldiers, perhaps.-- Forerunner 14:11, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Right now canon doesn't matter, I'm talking the game.Lekgolo 19:19, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think they are in game because in the vidoc it shows a brute model different from halo 2\3.

SPARTAN IIIIIIIIII 11:44, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Spartan, it shows one of those brutes in Etu Brute? Vidoc for Halo 3. I think those big ones were inspiration for the new elites, because theyhave the same helm.Lekgolo 17:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think there will be brutes because there are gravity hammers and i never seen a elite wield gravity hammers unless its in multiplayer. Registered contributor 02:10, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'l see they are different.

SPARTAN IIIIIIIIII 19:16, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because that one guy Bungie was filming in the vidoc who was working on a new Brute Model was totally doing that in his spare time with company resources, and they totally threw it into the vidoc for a clear three seconds even though it won't be in the final game. They will be there.StalkerGrunt117 19:21, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

ZingWarhead xTEAMx 20:07, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Look in the background, there's a yellow Chieftain seen in ETU Brute?.Lekgolo 05:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

We saw a Brute with a sword but he didn't appear.Oh, and I hope there is brutes, but it's unlikely.Lekgolo 05:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's unlikely? Just curious. --TDSpiral94 10:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why did you think they included them in the Vidoc?StalkerGrunt117 14:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Because, StalkerGrunt, they slapped them in for 3 seconds and they did the same with a sword Brute.Lekgolo 22:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they did but Brutes really appeared in Halo 3, with a sword or not. Bungie wouldnt show them without a reason.StalkerGrunt117 18:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Stalker, what does them appearing, have to do with a sword brute appearing?; I don't know really OK. But it's unlikly. And why, when they show the brute's concept, would they show the older versions, too?Lekgolo 04:35, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

And why would brute weapons disappear suddenly? Not a single one remaining?Lekgolo 22:20, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I imagine a few of the Brute weapons won't be appearing in Reach for canonical reasons, or perhaps they were unbalanced, but Brutes themselves would probably stay in the game as an alternative to the Elites for variety's sake. The ViDoc shows them wearing new armour, like the Elites - these aren't cut Halo 3 or Reach concepts, these were getting skinned and textured. Why would Bungie go through so much effort to show something that wouldn't appear? -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 22:56, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why was mine deleted all I said was that I think brutes will appear somewhat how hunters did in halo 1 if they are in Halo:Reach and it got deleted...why?oh well I just though that they wanted to focuse on the Elites this time and go back to the things that made Halo 1 good and brutes were not one of them...--Someguy789 20:30, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Lekgolo, i was responding to your statement in wich you said that they put in the sword brute in the halo 3 vidoc and it didnt make it into the final version. The Brutes clearly appeared on the part with that guys screen and on multiple notes that had Brute written on them. Who said that Brute weapons dissapeared?? Bungie only said that the number of weapons are going to be reduced, but not that Brute guns are gone.I saw a note that said "gravity hammer" in the vidoc so dont jump to conclusions.i think they showed the early model because they want to make a new version similar to the old halo 2 one. The one shown in the vidoc Does Not look like any other brute ive seen. If the Flood are now gone, they may keep Brutes for variety and that all the hard work that was put into making them and their AI doesnt go to waste.StalkerGrunt117 16:48, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Considering a weekly update previewed the multiplayer announcer saying Grifball like the match just started leans towards a gravity hammer to be included TMek7Leader of Team 42 07:58, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Hammers were seen in the multiplayer beta trailer so they could be in the game.Spartan Ambose 13:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)\

More evidence: In the most recent Bungie Feb/March podcast, Audio Lead Jay Weinland, mention they already completed voice recording for the Grunts for Reach, and were moving onto the Elites and Brutes voices. I didn't keep track at what timing of the podcast he said that, but I am sure it's more or less about halfway through the podcast. There you have it, the most, significant, indirect official proof from Bungie, that Brutes are in the game, for those still not convinced by even the presence of Gravity Hammers. :) Dark Neptune 02:38, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hooray, now things seem more like a halo 2 thing where brutes and elites were enemies but were not attacking you as a group.Spartan Ambose 14:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I now a Bungie employee and he says that the brutes are going to be included in Halo: Reach. - Harald97

First off "Harald97" You are blowing Chunks like Never before, Lies, Second, Brutes are Offically In Reach, no Denying anymore. 69.221.147.179 17:56, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

How can they be in reach if humans first encountered them on unyielding hierophant in halo: first strike? Master 388 17:15, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Nop, the first time humans encoutered brutes was not on unyielding hierophant but on harvest--Fipas 18:06, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie confirmed that the Jiralhanae will be in Reach. End of discussion. -- Ultra Force 03:39, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Night Vision

In the ViDoc at 5:41 I noticed the player is using some kind of night vision. (Like ViSR but without the outlines) It could be an armor ability but I doubt that, because there's already the sprint icon in the bottom left of the screen. 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 12:09, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Old news, I'm afraidWarhead xTEAMx 12:14, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just curious if it will be an armor ability or standard abilty. 3vil D3m0nDon't worry, I'm not really evil... 12:43, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Standard.Lekgolo 17:58, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be seeing the return of visor! At the very beginning of the new trailer the elite on the tank has an outline of blue light. FatalSnipe117 13:25, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

First, it's called VISR. Visor is a part of a helmet. And finally, that is just the shield outline. If you watch closely, the blue shimmer around the elite disappears, and as seen throughout the video and in the ViDoc, that blue color is the new shield color for Elites.Warhead xTEAMx 21:28, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

If this will be standard then how exactly will we activate it? up on d pad? certain missions? any ideas? Incorruptible 18:54, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Probably going to replace the flashlight as a standard ability, and thusly, probably up on the D-Pad. Warhead xTEAMx 21:28, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
It will be left on the D-pad, you can see it if you look up the control scheme in the beta HushɘrD316 TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • FEET FIRST INTO HELL! 12:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

i wonder if they will include this for night multiplayer levels....wait with bungie talking about better weather effects.MAYBE just maybe...they will have a night/ day toggle option in forge...Da bad adder 09:23, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

3rd Person Assassination

In the Bungie Podcast on the 28th of January 2012, 'The Beardtactular Podcast', it is confirmed that the new assassination method where you enter a 3rd person animation will NOT replace the old instant kill assassination, but be an extention of it, if the player prefers to do the longer assassination as a sort of, quote: "a Tea-bag plus". Originally when it was implemented in Multiplayer, one could only perform the new assassination, but when this was met with 'mixed feelings' to say the least, the old assassination method was reinstated alongside the new one. The new assassination method is discussed between 43:00 and aprox. 46:40, with the confirmation above is mentioned between aprox 43:00 and 44:30 or so. If one that has access to the article sees this, please rewrite the statement that says that the new assassination replaces the old one. Warhead xTEAMx 20:39, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

So pressing B will probably result in the old Beat Down Insta kill and holding down B (They said it in the Vidoc, I think) will be a knife insta-kill. II Helljumper II 20:48, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Presumably, yesWarhead xTEAMx 20:59, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

In the event that a player is still allowed to play as an Elite would you use an Energy cutlass in your assassinations?4.153.71.204 21:22, March 7, 2010 (UTC)Lance Corporal Phy-ODST

That depends on the weapon that you use. It has been confirmed that the assassination depends on that. (Also, sorry for this strange box thing. I don't know how this happened—This unsigned comment was made by Toen6 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Headhunter Short Story

I read through the Headhunter short story today and made a discovery. It's assumed on that article page that the Headhunters wear SPI armor. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that this assumption is bogus; among other things of course. Limited active camo armor modules? VISR? Shields? Sure sounds a lot like Noble Team's Mjolnir armor.

I mean, if you really think about it, the entire short story is a massive prelude to Reach's Noble Team. Read the story after the latest Halo Reach updates and you'll see what I mean. Noble Team seems to be completely derived from these Headhunter teams. Statements like, "But among this collection of steadfast soldiers there was a select few with a bond deeper than the others could ever begin to imagine, as these unique IIIs were a secret even to their peers,"(p.159) and others like, "Once selected, candidates were separated from their fellow Spartans..." (p.161) seem to indicate a MASSIVE correlation with the intel data we've been provided for Reach.

Maybe Noble Team is just the surviving leftovers from the 17 members in the Headhunter program, or possibly the five left (not including Jorge) that aren't grouped into pairs (given that there is six pairs). --Nerfherder1428 03:38, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assertion of Noble Team being part of the Headhunter programme. The thing is that the Headhunters has specifically stated that a team is composed of only two SPARTAN-IIIs whereas the original Noble Team was made up of three (Carter, Kat and Thom) or potentially more as there's a lot of ambiguity to how big Noble Team is when it was first formed.
Regarding the SPI/MJOLNIR; dunno about that one. VISR is an optional tool that can be equipped by any unit given that it will be useful and an advantage to the user in a certain combat environment. Anyone can use the VISR as long as it's related to their operation's environment (i.e. Bringing NightVision to a Night-oriented operation). I don't know where you pulled out Headhunters having shields...... It has been generalised that all S-IIIs used SPI (hence, camouflage) as their standard armour and that the MJOLNIR is given only with the approval from the Brass (See Urban Holland's report).{insert name here} 03:50, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
No, no Ascension, you don't understand. The Headhunters story tells us that only 12 of the 17 Headhunters are grouped into pairs. The other five Spartans aren't really discussed (p160) and seems to be left purposely ambiguous. It also says Headhunters are given much more technology than their brethren, especially experimental tech. VISR is a relatviely new technology but you're right when you say it may be coincidental with Noble team. However, it DOES say that Headhunters have shields on page 164, something that should raise a red flag outright. On top of that, you mistake me when I talked about the camo. It's not the semi-efficient photoreactive panel camo equipped on SPI armor. SPI is never even mentioned. The camo in the story is a legitimate experimental reverse-engineered active camoflage just like those used by Covvies and our Spartans in Halo Reach. They become almost invisible. See p164 for details. If you have access to the book, Ascension, I promise you'll understand what I'm saying by reading it now as opposed to before our limited Reach information was released. --Nerfherder1428 11:39, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


Nice find. :)
I have to question what "Shielding" means in the story itself; is it an actual Shielding Technology similar to those used in MJOLNIR Mark V or is it simply a part of the armour which protect the users from environmental hazards such as EMP and Radiation? We know that the SPI doesn't fully cover its wearer (Tom sinking down as water enters his SPI armour) and that what the Headhunters wore could simply be an updated version of the SPI with a full body cover. I know I'm being very picky here but just to be on the safe side, we need an actual confirmation that the armour wore by Headhunters are indeed the MJOLNIR and not the SPI.
Back to the "Shielding" issue, we know that when the MJOLNIR Mark V's shield will burst out when it is failing/receiving too much damage whereas a MJOLNIR mk VI's shielding simply vanish. This is important as to differentiate the earlier model and the improved model of the shielding technology. So, the SPI with the so-called "Shielding" should have experience similar effects like the Mark V. In Headhunters however, there is no mention/indication of any shielding effects. When Roland is killed, there is no mention of any shield burst/shield vanishing whatsoever. As such, this implies that "Shielding" would most probably refer to EMP/Radiation Shielding.
Just adding about the Camouflage part: we don't really know to how long the SPI Mark I or Mark II can hold out in camouflage state; all we're given from GoO is that the SPI is capable of rendering the user to a close state of invisibility and that the Mark II is the improved version. What the Headhunters had could potentially be the improved prototype camouflage technology for the SPI Mark II as it had no problems with the amount of particles in the air.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 20:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, EMP shielding is a possibility. The quote I found it in briefly mentions that the armor HAS shields, so it could very well refer to the EMP/Radiation shielding that we know most bodysuits and armor in the UNSC are equipped with. I thought of the same thing myself. I wouldn't say it's probably one theory or another, but probably more ambiguous than anything. I feel like it would play a more important part in the story had it been true shielding. Still makes you wonder why it was mentioned though!
As for camo, I still see a possibility of a connection. The book goes into great detail about how the active camo (a word reserved solely for the Elite system of camo rather than SPI's) are reverse engineered from Elite tech, whereas SPI's photoreactive panels (Mark I anyways. I'm not sure if Mark II was confirmed to use panels) were human engineered from the start and operate under completely different principles and methods. On top of that, it also said that the "av-cam" utilized an experimental unit implied to be an attached to part of the armor. This once again discounts the SPI panel theory because in that scenario, every single plate of the armor was engineered with the camoflage projection tech integrated within. But Roland didn't wear special armor plating, he got a special module attached to the suit that completely enveloped his body in active camo. Once again, just like the Covenant's.
The last bit of inductive evidence I can offer is the fact that this av-cam module was only given to select Spartans when the SPI mk I (and later mk IIs)) were standard issue. As for the Noble Team connection, what's your opinion? The book claims that at the height of the program, there were seventeen Headhunter members, twelve of which were paired up. The problem with matching the remaining five to Noble team is that there's six known S-III Noble Team members: Carter, Emile, Thom, Kat, Jun, and Noble Six. We know Noble Six was a loner so he could probably be guranteed a spot as one of the five. As for the extra man/woman, one must consider the possibility that a failed op left a Headhunter without a partner, thus earning him a spot on Noble Team. I guess one must also remember that at the beginning of the program, there were only eight people. This is likely Beta Company. The next generation of S-IIIs likely provided the rest of the Headhunters. Obviously, some of this is speculation, but it's interesting enough to merit a discussion.
Last but not least, are we getting hints with the new Headhunter gametype or is it pure coincidence?--Nerfherder1428 22:38, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is best to just wait for the game to come out. It will just save us all the trouble and arguing. :P
For Noble Team being part of the Headhunters, it is plausible... however, you have to consider this: it has been stated that only eight out of the 12 remained as a permanent team like Jonah and Roland. This would suggest that the others (four + five = nine) were frequently rotated to serve for an amount of time... but this is my little theory. :P - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:37, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
You always have to interrupt me and my discussions. >:( {insert name here} 02:53, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Another clue: quote from page 164: " As it stood, Roland's power armor was equiped with one of ONI's experimental active camoflage units, along with a dedicated power supply". This seems to suggest that the armor is powered, and has a dedicated power supply for a much better camoflage unit, with a time limitation, unlike the SPI. Warhead xTEAMx
23:02, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
yeah, but there are still a few discrepancies, one bieng since they are spartan IIIs, dont you think it would be mentioned that they wear Mjolnir instead of SP, generally to avoid the readers making wrong asumptions,if they are IIIs and wearing MJOLNIR armor, wouldnt that be specifically mentioned that they dont wear SPI.( black team wore a different mjolnir, so it was mentioned to avoid the reader assuming it was mark IV). for all we know it could be a heavily modified SPI, or the much fabled mark III SPI, plus the story often mentiones having physical contact with the armor (ie. pressing the button on the helmet to activate VISR and wiping his knife on the armor) wouldnt this be impossible if it had shields. on the other hand it seems like they are indeed wearing MJOLNIR. but the most important piece of evidence would be in kurt 051, assessmant of beta company where he justifies noble having mjolnir in saying that their "recon teams" had such great succcess.

Forge mode

Does anyone know if there will be a forge mode? cause that was awesome and Bungie pissed me off in ODST by taking it out.-Dude, Sa çe mon POO!

Uh ODST does have forge not the campaign disk but the multiplayer disk has it why would they even have it in ODST for so someone could cheat at firefigh? ANd yes forge is planned to be in ReachSomeguy789 06:13, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I swear, if they take out forge (Which they are not going to), I would not play the game as much. Forge was added to halo 3 for people who wanted to just chill out and create their own maps. Sales for Reach would also be slightly down from the unexpected removal of Forge. --"Why am I here and what the hell are you?"The guy who hates his username. 20:49, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, as stated in one of the Halo 3 ViDocs, that weren't their intentions at all when they created the Forge. They added it primarily so that people could change spawn points, weapons and little stuff that they were unhappy with, and goof around, but not make insane maps like people started using the Forge to.Warhead xTEAMx 23:57, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie did say that In Halo 3, players were limited to a total of around 100 custom content items (maps, game types, films, screens, etc.), but in Reach, you’ll be able to have THOUSANDS of custom content items. Better yet, you’ll be able to upload, tag, and search for content right from the in game menus, utilizing the massive database previously found only through Bungie.net to tag and query our vast community collection for kick ass content. So, it is likely they will have forge.

They were talking about colliding particles, not content items... I don't think that they will take out an awesome gametype like Forge though. And sign your post next time, please. 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 06:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot to sign. And tell me, where do you get colliding particles out of THAT? HGR
Lol, colliding particles was said in the ViDoc, HGR is talking about the Weekly update (or just a halo reach update, i'm not sure). I'm not sure if forge is in it or not. They DID mention 'maps' in the custom content but that could be an example of Halo 3 custom content. The maps don't look very interesting to forge, but then again Sandtrap, Last resort and High ground were all arkward to forge imaginatively (lack of solid walls and blocks to forge) but fun maps were made from them. TMek7Leader of Team 42 00:20, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
We've only seen one or two maps... I mean, could you imagine if we had, say like a fort or barracks to forge in? Imagine the possabilities, particularly for machinima and that sort of stuff! HGR

bungie KNOWS forge is popular, if they keep it the same as halo 3(no really awesome features) people wil be extremely dissapointed. i trust bungie to upgrade forge into the "definative forge mode".Da bad adder 09:27, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Why is there no Section on Halo Reach Multiplayer?? One of the Admins should look at the Wikipedia Page on this and then Type up A new Section.JimMy pAz Br07 22:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because there are no official multiplayer modes. Halo: Reach Multiplayer Beta is just a beta and some of the beta content will most likely be removed from the final game.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:30, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Any Firefight mode? ŖЁĠͧŤ3ŔẼĎ ₵ΘИ†®|฿ŪŢÖṜ 02:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
No confirmation yet.Sketchist 02:22, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
It would be cool though. -->My Page Talk Page Contributions Page All Edits Page Email Page (UserWiki:Cally99117|Wiki Page]]) (Favourite Page) (Opinion Page) 14:33, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
They're's a firefight in Reach. I saw the vid on Bungie.com. Firefight also has brutes! - - Echoes are all you hear... 21:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Huragok

Can someone show me a reasonable source to Huragok being in the game otherwise I want it removed, but if you provide a reasonable source then I will replace the {{Fact}} template with the source. -->My Page Talk Page Contributions Page All Edits Page Email Page (UserWiki:Cally99117|Wiki Page]]) (Favourite Page) (Opinion Page) 14:32, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

No seriously this is about something that is in the article but not seen in any trailers and/or has not been confirmed so this is important so you have to give me a source. -->My Page Talk Page Contributions Page All Edits Page Email Page (UserWiki:Cally99117|Wiki Page]]) (Favourite Page) (Opinion Page) 13:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I added the source, but for goodness sake, you don't need to actually repeat yourself, we read what you typed the first time, have patience. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:19, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

A Spartan-II

Ok just a little confused here and hoping someone can explain this to me bc i cant seem to. Regardless which of the 3 Spartans are missing (Halo War's Red Team, Grey Team, Black Team), it is safe to say that 052 was not among them, meaning he was part of the Spartan mission to capture the Covenant leadership. Therefore, he should be aboard the Pillar when Red Team left to defend the generators. First Strike keeps track of those Spartans and how many die (even if all the KIA arn't mentioned by name). so tell me, how did a S-II get hooked up to Noble? Psycho60 03:03, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Jorge must've joined Noble Team long before the battle. He was obviously never a part of the mission to capture the Covenant leadership with the rest of the S-IIs. They may have even separated him from the rest of the Spartan-IIs by faking his death, much like what they did with Kurt.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 05:51, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
That is what i thought at first, but at the briefing at Reach. All the Spartans except the 3 too distant to be recalled, the 4 KIA, and the 1 WIA were present. The 3 MIA are either Grey Team (based on John's comment in First Strike), Red Team from Halo Wars, or Black Team. With Maria confirmed WIA, and with Randall and Sheila and Samuel (I think that is her name) as three of the confirmed KIA and Kurt as the other, it is safe to say the Jorge was in the briefing room for the Spartan's mission
He isn't goddamnit. There are only 14 class I SPARTAN IIs left if you do the math, so Jorge wasn't one of the SPARTANs being briefed. Logically, there's a class II to fill in the missing numbers.-- Forerunner 22:55, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Explain that, it is specifically said that their are 25 Spartans in the briefing room three days before the Battle of Reach. Even with a slight descrepeny in First Strike, at least 20 Spartans dropped to the planet's surface. So where did you get 14 from? Psycho60 00:35, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
33 SPARTANs completed agumentation without injuries. Sam, Daisy, Solomon, Arthur, Cal, Sheila, and an unknown S-II on Harvest are comfirmed to be KIA. Thats 26. Kurt, Randall, and Grey Team are MIA so thats 21 (the Halo Wars timeline saids that Grey Team is the missing team so Red Team must have gotten back in time). Maria retired and Ralph was discarged from the program because of his emotional problems after seeing his flash-clone die (Frankie comfirmed this on HBO). 19 S-IIs remain. Jorge was most likely Kurted and with Noble Team at the time. 18. I'm counting Black Team since that was the impression I got from Blunt Instrutments. 14 S-IIs right there. Note - I'm not counting Keichii and Joe since we don't know what happen to them. SPARTAN-177 19:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Jorge was only very recently assigned to Noble team for a specific reason, e.g: to compare Spartan II's

and Spartan III's in combat. Or, as it has already been pointed out, Jorg may have been kidnapped, like Kurt. However, he does seem to have some experience with Noble team, for example, in the World Premiere trailer, he has known Carter, and recognises him as his superior officer. This supports the fact that Jorge may have been active within Noble Team for some time. User talk:Brodie-001 10:18, June 5th, 2010 (UTC)

that would make sense i guess. i am just still hung up bc it doesn't synch up with teh numbers from FoR and FS. If he was with noble, he shouldn't have been briefed on teh Spartans mission or dropped with Red Team to defend the generators, but the numbers show that he had to. Psycho60

Citations

Some of the items in this article are not adequately accounted for: specifically, I'm referring to the "Anchor Niner", "UNSC Sabre", and "UNSC Savannah" entries. They link to a video that cannot be watched. Do we have any independent evidence of these things? If not, they should be removed for now. D3in0nychu5 04:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but what about weapons such as the Spiker and the fuel rod gun? I mean, besides blueprints, we have no proof that they are in the game. An image on bungie.net is no proof, otherwise it could also be proven that an energy sword is in Halo 3 ODST...DatrDeletr 11:55, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

The video is about a German recording studio voice-covering Halo: Reach. It has been verified and checked, before the video was set to private viewing. I am certain German websites would have access to the video. As for the weapons that did not appear in the Beta; the schematics of the weapons changed considerably/drastically/significantly from Halo 3's. Try comparing H3's Fuel Rod Gun and the presumed-Halo: Reach schematic found in B.net. Such distinct change in weapons' design supports the assertion that these weapons will be in the finalised game. If not, we can always simply remove the info in the end.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:09, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I have looked and compared the weapons before, but before the game comes out or bungie confirms it, this is only speculation. I don't think we should put speculative and possibly incorrect data in the page. Besides, the FRG does look different, but the spiker looks almost identical to it's Halo 3 version-i fail to see how the argument of "Distinct variation in design implying weapons in-game" applies. DatrDeletr 14:02, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Out of all schematics, only a few (or potentially just one) schematics have not change in terms of design. Perhaps that is the intended design in Reach? Almost everything in Halo: Reach has been redesigned to some extent from its older titles. Speculation can be added into the article provided that it is supported with some strong evidence. It is, however, discouraged as always. Perhaps it all depends on the level of absurdity of the speculation itself; extremely absurd speculations are to be removed immediately while less-likely absurd speculations could remain, provided they are supported with strong evidences. This has always been the approach Halopedia taken all these years, despite what is stated in H:NOT. Back to the discussion; the inclusion of the weapons is of little significance and doesn't really affect the article as whole. Again, if it doesn't appear in the final game, we can always remove the info.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:23, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Drones?

Has there been any confirmation that Yanme'e will be in the game? They are listed in the species section and the only source provided is a link to the Firefight 2.0 trailer, but I don't see any Drones in that trailer. Should it be removed? 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 05:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to see drones return as part of the game, but I checked the Firefight Trailer again and I don't see any drones in it at all. Would someone be able to give a specific timestamp on the trailer that shows a drone? Or a specific timestamp on another video or even a quote and link to an article please?--Rimnek 015 20:48, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

As a third witness, I too don't see anything in the Firefight 2.0 trailer to show evidence of Drones. Bungie.net is aflame with users arguing both sides, an no supporting evidence has been able to be shown. I suggest that the Drones be removed from the species list until 100% confirmed.--Ocean Soul 00:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Drones are not to return to Reach as described in Bungie Weekly Update. [1] --Ace99 02:11, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Urk only mentions that Drones will not be appearing in Firefight so they could still be in the game, but it does prove my point that there aren't any Drones in the trailer and therefore there is no proof of them being in the game. I agree with Ocean Soul. EDIT: Ah I see that someone already removed it. 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 06:44, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this seems to be a misconception on my part. I added Drones because I distinctly saw a small, flying, yellow creature that was killed in one or two shots. That pretty much spells out "Drone" to me, but in light of last night's Weekly Update, I was most likely mistaken, so I guess I'll remove the information, unless someone did it already. EDIT: Which someone did. -Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 11:03, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone put Drones back in and the article has been locked, can an admin please remove it? 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 13:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

We have no confirmation of them (as an unregistered contributor just pointed out) so I'm going to remove it from the article. If yo want it back up then put it up with a source. No one from Bungie has confirmed it yet and

I won't be surprised if they won't be in it; because they didn't appear until Halo 2 so it would mess with canon. - --ThePlatypus 16:32, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

How would it mess with canon? Drones have always been around in the Human-Covenant war, and since they're mostly accompanied by Brutes that would be a good reason why they were not in the first game. 3vil D3m0n Don't worry, I'm not really evil... 08:36, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Drones should be there as they were in ODST Firefight if they are in that then they are in Reach. also i hope they have Engineers.--Jay96 11:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC)


We have no confirmation of Drones (as an unregistered contributor just pointed out) so I'm going to remove it from the article. If yo want it back up then put it up with a legirimate source. No one from Bungie has confirmed it yet and Halopedia is not a speculative forum.- FatalSnipe11719:27, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do it actually, but then I saw this post. I agree, Bungie has only said they are not in Firefight. That does not prove that they are in campaign. So far, there is no evidence of Drones.--FluffyEmoPenguin 21:28, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have a wild idea about the Yanme'e inclusion in Halo: Reach and it's article here on Halopedia. I mind you that this idea will stir up controvesy and make people think about their views and possibly change them for better or worse. This idea will be absolutely revolutionary and is the shape of things to come....add a fvcking verification needed template and stop arguing. User:CommanderTony/Sig

We do not need verification for Drones in Halo: Reach. I have already searched every possible source and there is NO confirmation of Drones. The template is unnecessary.--FluffyEmoPenguin 19:04, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
There is no "we" in this discussion. And you can either have the verification template on there or the page can be locked because nobody knows how to properly maintain and/or edit it. If I were you and the others in this conversation, i'd think about going with the former of the two choices. User:CommanderTony/Sig
Excuse me, but let's not be a dictator here. I added the comment about the Drones' existance and whatnot, don't you think that is good enough? The verify source template is used for items that need a source but one can't be found due to it being hard to find, so using it here would be improper. Yes, people should learn how to maintain it properly, but if I slap in a verify source, then who's to say they won't just put back up those incorrect sources?--FluffyEmoPenguin 19:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Considering I monitor this page and assumed the unofficial role of "guardian" for it, there's me who constantly watches for incorrect sources. And i'd watch your tone son. This discussion concerning the Yanme'e inclusion in Reach is over until further notice. User:CommanderTony/Sig
I like the idea of the "unknown campaign inclusion". I thought my tone was justified, but whatever, the arguement is over now.--FluffyEmoPenguin 19:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Equipment

Okay, the equipment section in this article is getting really messy. There is no distinction between armor variants, armor abilities, and any armor ability-devices. We even have the Covenant orbital insertion pod listed under the equipment section for crying out loud! As such, it is just a confusing jumble. I move that it should be separately noted elsewhere in the article that armor customization exists, with a link to a separate page for all the different variants. Only armor abilities should be noted on the Halo: Reach page, while the devices responsible for generating these abilities should be linked to in the individual, relevant articles on these abilities. As the idea of "equipment" per se is a somewhat obsolete Halo 3 concept, the section should simply be renamed "armor abilities". D3in0nychu5 07:22, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree. This section is quite jumbled up and could use some sorting. I suggest an "Armor Abilites" and "Armor Permutations" section. I'm not exactly well versed on the devices that generate the abilities' pages, so I'm guessing some merging here and there should be done to THOSE articles first.--FluffyEmoPenguin 20:05, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong City

the picture of that fire fight map, the city the background isn't Manassas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWmnbni02U&feature=player_embedded

—This unsigned comment was made by ArchedThunder (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Alright, thanks for the head's up ArchedThunder! User:CommanderTony/Sig

Woh, hold up there tiger, don't jump straight to the conclusion that it's New Alexandria. Why? Because we designated the city as Manassas, after the same guy, Brian Jerrard, named it as such here. It's the same guy, giving the same scripted presentation, the only difference, is that he gives two conflicting city names. One of them is a slip, so which one do we take as truth, or how do we clarify otherwise? - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 12:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... we have no idea which one is actually true. Was the presentation where he said New Alexandria held after the one where he said Manassas? If so, it's possible he corrected it in the later one. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:56, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

UNICOM mention

For CT, UNICOM was mentioned in the Reach MP beta in the description for the MJOLNIR Mk V [B] helmet:

"Entered service in 2551; UNICOM/SPECWAR/GroupTHREE has been the sole adopter."

Also, how do we know for sure that SPECWARCOM refers to NAVSPECWAR? Kind of odd they'd leave that "NAV" part out if not on purpose. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

NAVSPECWARCOM has been in canon since 2001, and "SPECWARCOM" is also the name for the modern U.S. Navy special warfare branch and a shortened name for it. And anyways...the Unified Ground Command is a bunch of worthless canon and a waste of fictional UEG cR (just talk to me on Halo Fanon about why it is). User:CommanderTony/Sig
But regardless of its worthiness in the Halo Universe, if it's mentioned, it should be added to the article, should it not?- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:37, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
You still see it on the article, right? User:CommanderTony/Sig
It wasn't there before. :O - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:42, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Because nobody bothered to add it on here, not because of personal canon beliefs. User:CommanderTony/Sig
I hate nitpicking (in fact, I don't hate it at all), but are we just going to gently ignore the fact that Noble Team was directly stated to operate under UNICOM/SPECWAR by Bungie? I mean, what I have on the above post was the exact wording in the description. I don't know about others, but my "personal canon beliefs" involve believing what Bungie says, regardless of personal preferences of one military branch over another. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 16:56, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing, UNICOM isn't a branch, it's a unified combatant command. Honestly, why do they need a "Naval Command" solely for the Navy and "Unified Ground Command" for the Army and Marine Corps when the proper structure already exists within the branches for combat and peacekeeping operations? In this fans opinion, NAVCOM and UNICOM serve no purpose in the universe other than to funnel even more money into a worthless military bureaucracy and waste personnel for the multiple unnecessary commands. </rant> :) User:CommanderTony/Sig

Gallery

The Files on the Gallery section should be back to their original state a few days ago. The new feature causes the person to not see the entire File, along with the inability to see the File name. There is also a small problem of which the person is unable to make the File larger by clicking on it. --Ultra Force 04:16, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

You can see the Files by clicking the image in the slideshow feature. To make the file larger, simply click the small icon located on the lower left.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 07:37, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Revision

There are broken tags all over this page, it just looks sloppy. Also, what is up with the new way we have images displayed? The gallery doesn't work properly, introduces alot of slow down. Can we bring it back to the way prior? —This unsigned comment was made by Adamg0d (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I think the reason why is becuase of the page's new Gallery feature. But no one really knows how this problem occured. --Ultra Force 00:11, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
It's looked ugly ever since Tony locked it; the first few paragraphs and the reference spacing are hideous!Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 02:21, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to notify the administration team of the error as it takes only a few click away... >.>
Stop blaming the gallery feature; it works perfectly fine and I've tested it numerous times before implemented it into the article. The only problem that could arise would be the loading issue for those with slow internet speed. At 384kbps, the gallery seems to work fine with me.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 08:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Seems like everyone but me and you find the new gallery feature to work perfectly and actually makes pages look better. And Kougers, don't blame me...blame your fellow editors who don't know how to properly edit, find sources, etc. It's not my fault in the slightest that ya'll have crappy internets. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Article Errors

We know that the Halo: Reach article is currently fucked up at the moment, please do not send us a million talk page comments, private messages, or spam this page with complaints. This issue will soon be addressed and the article will soon be back up to normal.

Just take a chill pill bros [and sis'es].

Rawr,
User:CommanderTony/Sig

Fixed it, should be fine now. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 22:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Achievements

Bungie has released a sheet with achievement icons, as well as the names to some of them. Shouldn't that be added in somewhere? If it doesn't have enough merit, i understand. It was included in this update. Ace99 17:16, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

All the achievement info from that update was already added to Halopedia here. --Ultra Force 17:28, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

Whatever the hell happened to Halopedia's "Speculation" policies? Really? We have no confirmations that Buck was indeed the ODST character that was making a cameo in Reach at E3, only heavily hinted at, but yet CT insisted that Buck be put up on the article's "Apperances", instead of leaving it in the "Trivia" section. And just because Master Chief, Cortana and Sgt. Johnson were confirmed as Firefight voice options, they were placed in the Campaign's "Appearances" ASAP. And upon removing them, I got flamed. Wow. As much as I love Halo's story and am a fanboy myself, Halopedia is an encyclopedia source for all things Halo, which are meant to be factual (Save some fiction like RvB machinima stuff, etc.).

My question is this, why are people not making this article factual? I don't mind if MC, Cortana and Sgt. Johnson were listed under in a new section, "Firefight Voices" and/or in the trivia of this article, but why are even in the wrong ones? And whats more they had to be in the Appearances unless we have official confirmation they won't be in the Campaign at all. Shouldn't that logic be the other way round instead? I seriously starting to wonder why Halopedia's factual article sources enforcements have started to detorate.

So please, unless we have solid confirmations from trusted official sources that this thing is in or out, and not just hints or rumors, leave this article at it's factual state, where we add in new official info, and not just info based on what a fanboy thinks, damnit. Thanks, but it's really laughable to me for some people to think I am immature based on what I wrote for my edit's summary. Seriously.

Dark Neptune 11:48, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Simply adding (Firefight only) should resolve this problem... but someone removed those... adding them again. If you have concrete proof that they appear in the Campaign, remove. If not, they should stay...- Sketchist 13:46, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know anyone had such strong feelings [or just didn't give a rat's ass] about the issue. Until Reach is released, John-117, Cortana, and Avery Johnson will have an "unrestricted" status In the appearance section until proper confirmation (whether from Bungie or after a playthrough) can be given that they won't directly have a single ounce of appearance, mention, or whatever in the campaign. Eddie Buck has been confirmed by Bungie and his voice actor Nathan Fillion of having a cameo-appearance in the Reach campaign along with being a firefight voice. User:CommanderTony/Sig
That's the wrong way to look at it. They don't have confirmation to be in campaign, so therefor they should not be listed. I always thought that was the policy, the other is speculation.--FluffyEmoPenguin 19:13, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
@CT; I think you know me on Halopedia for a longtime now. Of course I give a damn about this issue, since it's a major Halopedia article. Like many people using Wikipedia to help out with their school work, other non-experienced Halopedians/non-Halopedians will take whatever they see in the articles here seriously. And as the community, we just can't let it happen right? Bungie has already trusted us as Halo's most trusted-informative site ya know. Surely we can't disappoint them? P.S. It's fun being an editor of certain factual info that people take it to heart; so it's all the more best not to edit misleading/false info into the article they love to read for knowledge. :) Dark Neptune 07:19, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

reorganization of the "appearances" section.

I know I am new to this wiki, but I have been a visitor for quite some time, and one thing has seriously been bugging me for awhile. I think the Appearances section should be drastically re-organized. weapons should be listed under their common or "layman's" names. this would provide quicker more easily identifiable information for everyone, and to be honest, most people don't care what the technical terms for the weapons are. nobody calls the spiker the "type-25 rifle" or the rocket launcher the "M41 SSR MAV/AW", and most people don't even care. Ultimately those names aren't even as descriptive as the common names anyways. I propose entries should look something like this:

That was a real quick edit, but I believe it Illustrates my point. This sort of Organization would be much easier to scan and friendly to people not as familiar with the technical names of the weapons.

The next proposal I would like to make is on a similar note; I believe the Vehicles should be ordered in the same fashion, but also there should be two different sections for vehicles to improve the accessibility. One section should be "Controllable" or "Pilotable" vehicles, and the other section should be "Non-Controllable". Thedryness 23:00, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know about that. It would just make the article more complex to list both the technical name and the common name. Besides, I think its policy to have up the technical names, even if it can be a pain. Sign your posts please. Que Sera, Sera

I didn't mean that both had to be listed, to keep it clean we could just use the common names and list the technical names on each individual weapons page. I just don't see any point to listing the weapons by names that few people know and even fewer use. If its policy to list technical names then I vote that we either change the policy or make an exception. Thedryness 23:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved.Que Sera, Sera

This isn't some shitty multiplayer guide, this is an encyclopedia. Anyone from now on who either splits the weapons section into Human and Covenant varieties or adds their informal names will be suspended for three days. I've had it with people thinking they're doing us a favor. End of discussion. User:CommanderTony/Sig
heres the "summary" i got from commander tony's edit above.
"Fuck off, this is an encyclopedia. Your "popular terms" can kiss my proper designated arse. And keep it fucking alphabetized, it's pretty much already sorted out as is...worthless blokes.""
— CommanderTony
I propose a logical change on a wiki and you respond with hostility, vulgar language, and unwarranted insults? but your right, it isn't some shitty multiplayer guide, but it certainly is shitty. its a video game WIKI you fuckin nazi! your just a stubborn punk with a control problem. wiki's are there so information can be presented in a collaborative fashion and cross checked, not fucking ruled over by some douche bag. nobody gives a fuck what the technical names are and listing weapons by them doesnt have any advantage, seriously "commander tony" fucking grow up you soggy cunt. this wiki is a fucking disaster, its organization its atrocious, and its riddled with information that is speculation at best.
If the weapons are listed in the menus of the game as "spikers" there is NO reason they should be listed as "type-25 rifles"... whatever bungie labels it in the game, should be what they are called here.
anyways, I'm out of here... you can do whatever you want with your shitty little corner of the internet. it's seriously become a joke.
go play your mother's hairy chode flute. Thedryness 00:37, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Have a nice vacation! User:CommanderTony/Sig
Lol. Agree with CT. This is a damn encyclopedia. Plus the weapons are stuff that are supposed to be more "Militarized-specific". And yah, CT's Vacations are for anyone who crosses the line way too much, and thinking they know it all. :) Dark Neptune 03:33, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Firefight only

Some users have various reasons to take out the (firefight only) part next to certain characters on this article: John, Johnson, Cortana and whatshisface. So far these characters have only been confirmed as Firefight voices, so for now it should be stated that they will be in Firefight only. Also it is impossible for these characters to appear in campaign. They are all in slipspace or on Installation 04. Now there is no proof that Reach's campaign takes place over several days, or over the period of 2 weeks. Even if the game, or part of the game, takes place during the events of First Strike, there's no way John or the others would be seen. Also if you notice in the Firefight voices section, it shows John wearing Mark VI armor, he was wearing V at the time of the Fall of Reach.

I say that for now, unless something uncanonly drastic happens, it should say for these characters (firefight only). It's the truth. Some people say that "there's a high possibilty Master Chief will appear in game as this is Bungie's last halo game." This isn't lostpedia where you can speculate based on no evidence. I might as well say that the Rookie is Master Chief because they both fight Covenant.

Also Urban Holland only evaluated Noble Team, doesn't mean that he'll be appearing in the game. He's just mentioned on a article on bungie.net. Kurt and Mendez are also and doesn't mean that they are appearing in the game. EchostreamFanJosh

cool story bro... anyway, here's the source proving that John-117 and all others that shouldn't be on Reach as being Firefight voices. Unlock now and make amends?- Sketchist 14:24, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the source. I will put it in the artcile once it is unlocked. I just have a hatred towards Halo noobs. I'll try to control it. EchostreamFanJosh
John won't be appearing in the campaign, that's been confirmed several times, but whether some of the other characters like Stacker or Buck will appear is still unknown. Yes, Stacker's on the Pillar of Autumn, but then again, he was also simultaneously on the In Amber Clad and New Mombasa. Buck has been confirmed to have taken part in the battle. The "firefight only" tag may be misleading, since we have no idea if some of the characters will appear in the campaign or not. An appearance in firefight is still an appearance in the game; the section doesn't need to specify where they appear. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:58, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
The Master Chief did participate in the Battle of Reach, but up in space securing the Circumference's nav data. In the Campaign level Long Night of Solace you travel up into the space battle which is where the Chief, Cortana, Sgt. Johnson, Pete Stacker, and Captain Keyes are. It is still possible to see the events of The Fall of Reach novel, which was previously impossible because we didn't think that Noble team would go into space, but they did. I'm not saying they will be in the game, but I'm saying that it is still possible that those characters aboard the Autumn will be in the game perhaps in a com transmition or as some sort of Easter egg. Que Sera, Sera 17:56, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I still think that it should say "Firefight only" for the time being. Sources have indicated only in firefight so far and lets just keep that until any further information is provided. It's telling the truth (specifically.) also this way we wont have 12 year old noobs on the bungie forums saying John will be IN the campaign. EchostreamFanJosh
I wasn't suggesting we change it, I was just clearing the record so that everyone would be happy:) Que Sera, Sera 18:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Long Night of Solace is the 4th or 5th mission. So if every mission takes place over a period of an hour, then that means that MC is long gone. The PoA did not participate in the battle that long. I don't deny the posibilty that this may be the only time we may see the PoA in the game but that's just speculation. Also Urban Holland will NOT BE IN REACH. Who the frak put him down as one of the characters appearing? Like I said, all he did was evulate Noble Team, for all we know he could be on earth, or Onyx the entire time. We might as well put down that Dr. Halsey is in the game along with other characters from the Fall of Reach novel because they are simply on the same planet. EchostreamFanJosh
It doesn't even matter if they're in campaign or in Firefight only; the list is for characters appearing the the game, not in the campaign. But yeah, might as well remove Col. Holland from the list since he hasn't been confirmed to make an appearance in the game proper (although we have no way to know if he'll actually be in the game). The others on that list are in the game, even if they're in Firefight only. Mentioning that is irrelevant, at least at this point, since we have no idea if the characters will be making an appearance one way or the other. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 13:14, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I argue that they are not actually characters, just their voices. If they were characters making an appearance in the game, they would have to actually be there in the flesh as a full character. Part of the reason I want those characters removed from the front page is because it gives a false illusion as to who's in the game.--FluffyEmoPenguin 19:16, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FluffyEmoPenguin, we don't need 12 year old noobs running around saying that John will be in the game because Halopedia says so. I believe that "firefight only" should be placed besides their names until the full game comes out. Or there should just be a subsection under Characters that says "firefight voices only" and it lists the characters. Doing this will be providing a accurate description of the knowledge we currently know. EchostreamFanJosh

He will be in the game, that's kind of the point. "Game" does not translate to "campaign", no matter what obscure variation of English you happen to be using. And be aware that your excessive use of "twelve year old noobs" as an insult is only heightening your hypocrisy and immaturity in the matter. -Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 12:03, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

But saying that they will be in firefight only does not specify that they wont be in the "Game".-- The Storm 59 14:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that we don't truly know if they will be in the campaign or not and that we can't rule them out. But, we only have confirmation of them in the game as firefight voices, so you can't use the argument of "Well, they COULD be in campaign, you don't know!" because this isn't a speculative forum (as previously stated numerous times) and we can only post confirmed information. I argue that to be a "character", they must interact with the plot somehow. Since they are merely Firefight voices and the events in Firefight are just as non-canon as the events in multiplayer, they are NOT official characters. It would be like calling Halo 3's multiplayer skin voices "characters".--FluffyEmoPenguin 21:02, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone else has suggested this (i so then please dont flip out on me, and yes that happened before on another wikia, but i digress) why dont we, instead of adding 'firefight only' to them, we add 'presumed to only appear in firefight' which does not state anything definitively and states what we think (or presume if you will). it removes the possibility of people thinking that they will appear in campaign but doesnt say that they definitively dont and allows them to remain in the list. a fairly good compromise that fulfills what most of you have been arguing about. but if anyone would have an issue with this please bring it up--Kre 'Nunumee 21:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think (Firefight voice) works the best. What you suggested is far too long and it states a presumption, which is not appropriate. We should go with what info we actually have: they are Firefight voices. We don't have confirmation for them to be in the campaign, but we don't have confirmation for them to NOT be in the campaign. We can't state that "they might be in campaign" because it is an assumption, and we can't state that "they won't be in campaign" because we don't have confirmation. However, I remember Bungie saying that John-117 is confirmed to not be in the campaign. I can't remember where though...--FluffyEmoPenguin 21:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this exact situation just happened. Here--FluffyEmoPenguin 05:44, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Told yall this was going to happen. EchostreamFanJosh

Retrieved from "https://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Halo:_Reach/Archive_2&oldid=1385572"