986
edits
Talk:M6G magnum: Difference between revisions
→I STILL think it's a bad idea to consider the Halo 3 and Reach versions different sub-variants
Alex T Snow (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 404: | Line 404: | ||
:::::I could see H3's being a laser sight, as that's also a form of sight, but Reach's would definitely be scope top/light bottom. You're being a little too picky with attachments relating to variants; the attachments are modular, you could easily remove both the top and bottom attachment from Reach's in-universe, and/or replace them with something else. The bottom attachment being a scope is completely inconsistent with everything else, and Reach getting zoom and that attachment is an example of correlation does not equal causation. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (EDT) | :::::I could see H3's being a laser sight, as that's also a form of sight, but Reach's would definitely be scope top/light bottom. You're being a little too picky with attachments relating to variants; the attachments are modular, you could easily remove both the top and bottom attachment from Reach's in-universe, and/or replace them with something else. The bottom attachment being a scope is completely inconsistent with everything else, and Reach getting zoom and that attachment is an example of correlation does not equal causation. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
::::::You're telling me about correlation does not equal causation when you're saying the Halo 3 M6G has a scope up top because that's where it is on all the others (and actually, the only one where we DO know for certain is the M6D, as its top attachment is its only one). Also, the M6C/SOCOM's scope is mounted underneath it, so it's not inconsistent at all. And again, you don't even NEED a physical sight in Halo's weaponry. Everything is smart-linked to either the user's HUD or neural interface. | |||
::::::Basically, what I'd like to get out of this discussion is this: neither explanation can confirm what the attachments are, so why jump the gun and put it in the article like you magically know for certain?--[[Image:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 00:14, 29 September 2014 (EDT) | |||