Talk:HRUNTING/YGGDRASIL Mark II (D) Geyrion

Mark IV

The original Cyclops is called the HRUNTING Mark III. Logically, wouldn't this be a Mark IV or higher? -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 00:10, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Though logically since it's called Mark III, then there must have been two prototype iterations before that. Maybe the place where this is being constructed was abandoned long before the Human-Covenant War and they never finished the Mark II and chose instead to move on to the Mark III. Weird.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

I thought of the same thing. Could it be that they "re-branded" the Mk. III exoskeleton as the Mark I Cyclops later on, somewhat like they introduced the Mark system to the MJOLNIR series? That, or what Spartacus said. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (EST)

My guess would be your suggestion. Like the retroactive redesignation of the ORION soldiers as first-generation Spartans. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 00:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Exactly. It stands to reason they abandoned the "Mark III" designation after they began developing the Cyclops as a new series of its own, despite its beginnings as an offshoot of the pre-MJOLNIR exoskeletons. Designating the second-generation Cyclops as Mark IV would've overlapped with the MJOLNIR family Mark system. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Has anyone considered that "Cyclops Mark II" could simply be an informal name, which was used in the showreel. -TheLostJedi 12:28, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Doesn't sound like an informal name when it has "Mark II" as part if it's name. An informal name would sound more like "Warthog" as opposed to it's formal name "M12 Force Application Vehicle". Then again the formal name for the Cyclops in Halo Wars is "HRUNTING Mark III (B) Exoskeleton" and not "Cyclops Mark III".--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Size

Judging by the SPARTANs running past it in the most recent trailer, the Mark II looks to be much larger than the Cyclops Mark I. Something to mention?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 15:20, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Different variant of Cyclops Mark II?

John-117 facing a UNSC powered exoskeleton with similar designs to the Cyclops.

Is this, or is this not a Cyclops Mark II? It looks like it might be one, albeit probably a different variant of it. People keep removing it thinking it isn't one. I thought we would just keep it here in the article's image gallery section until we have more information as to what it truly is. So if it's okay with everybody else, for the time being, I'm gonna put it back where it belongs for now, until we have more information. By the way, it looks like it's in Warhouse, but I cannot be completely certain. But until we know for sure, shall we just keep it where it is for now? --Xamikaze330 08:25, 5 August 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Changed wording since the issue is "is it or is it not". Also, the background in the image is almost certainly not Warhouse.— subtank 10:56, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Well, at least we've managed to establish that part. As I said earlier, I wasn't completely certain if it was Warhouse. Only that the powered exoskeleton looked similar to the supposed Cyclops Mark II. --Xamikaze330 13:57, 5 August 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

It looks nothing like the Cyclops Mark II.ArchedThunder 18:46, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

I didn't say they looked identical, I said they looked similar. Until further information is available, the image stays where it is for now. --Xamikaze330 18:48, 5 August 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

That makes absolutely no sense. It being on the page is speculation and this wiki does not do that. Besides they don't share anything in their design except for the fact that they are mechs.ArchedThunder 15:57, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Discussed before and it does share some similarities.— subtank 16:11, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Per Subtank- It does have similar features to the Cyclops but its just smaller & different. As long as the image doesn't directly state that it is a Cyclops Mk. II (like it once said before) its not speculation. I'm sure we'll get a reveal on this soon. (Edit Conflict) I know I said "possibly unmanned" in the last dicussion about this but it appears I'm wrong. Also check this vid (skip to 2:00) for more detail. --Killamint Comm 17:52, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

It is as similar as the Mongoose is to the Warthog, or the Mjolnir Gen2 to Mark VI. Not enough for it to be on the page.ArchedThunder 15:32, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Ever heard of the word, variant, such as different variants of Warthogs? Perhaps it is just a different variant of a Cyclops Mark II.--Spartacus ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:55, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Per Spartacus- A different variant is definitely a possibility. But seriously how long will you continue this discussion. You seriously need to get over this. Let it go and keep it moving. All will be revealed in due time. --Kells [Comm|Files] 17:50, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

My point is that we don't know if it is a cyclops, so it doesn't belong here.ArchedThunder 18:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Well, it certainly does belong somewhere, so it might as well be here for the time being. What part of that do you not understand? Please just drop it. As soon as we have more information, it will either stay if it is confirmed to be a Cyclops, or if it isn't. Again, please just drop it. --Xamikaze330 19:30, 9 August 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Arched, how do you know it's not a Cyclops Mark II? You seem to be bashing everyone who thinks it could be, telling them they're incorrect. However you seem to be proclaiming yourself as correct by saying it isn't, even though you don't know if it isn't one. Please be patient, drop the issue, and wait for all to be revealed.--Spartacus ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:18, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Mantis

This article in Halo Destiny confirms that the name of the Cyclops Mark II is the Mantis and it will be playable in H4 campaign: [1] —This unsigned comment was made by Dr Mutran (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

No, the one on adrift is the Cyclops Mark II while the one in campaign is the Mantis. They are two different mechs like I have been saying all along.ArchedThunder 14:43, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

No the Mech in Adrift is the Mantis. You only have to compare the pictures to see that they are the exact same design (and teh Cyclops in Halo Wars is a completely different looking mech). Yes in early footage of Halo 4 it was called Cyclops II, but the probable reasoning for this is that at that time the development team had not come up with a name yet. VARGR 13:43, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

They're very similar, but not the same - look closely at the photos of each vehicle, the Mantis has a differently-shaped missile pod and lighter overall build. SPARTAN-347 15:02, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Rename

Now that the latest Waypoint update has confirmed that both the campaign and multiplayer mechs are variants of the Mantis, the campaign model with a heavier payload and the multiplayer model having a lither one, we should merge this article into the Mantis page. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 18:13, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Support

• Support - as per above. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 18:13, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
• Support - I can't get on Meta Cafe, but did any 343 employee ever mention that the Mech in the middle of Adrift is a Cyclops? In First Look, Brad Welch called it a "giant mech". Compare this image of the "Mantis" and this image of the "Cyclops", and you can see a similar set of weapons, a similar cockpit, with the most different part being the protrusion under the torso (bear in mind that the "Cyclops" is still under construction, and it is an early development screenshot). —SPARTAN331 21:39, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Oppose

• Oppose - ??? They were referring to two different variants of the "Mantis". Nothing was mentioned about the Cyclops Mk. II being one of those two variants.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 18:27, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
• Oppose - The Mantis variants are physically the same, and there was no mention of Cyclops Mark II as one of the variants. For me, the Cyclops Mark II was a AFV prototype that was never completed. --Dr Mutran 18:41, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
• Oppose - Got to agree with everyone here.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 13:51, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Comments

I watched the Metacafe video and at 4:26 Frank O' Conner says "Cyclops Mark II". Nuff said...--Killamint [Comm|Files] 05:08, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Alright thanks then. Where I live, we don't get any Metacafe. So much appreciated. Maybe Frankie was lying, or the Mantis was originally called the Cyclops Mark II like work-in-progress name... Nah, that would be silly.—SPARTAN331 06:06, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Is it a block on the website or something that you're experiencing? As far as Frankie goes, its too much of a mouthfull to change it to a Mantis afterwards. Also its not much of an importance to have some temporary code name; its more-so a level prop.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 13:36, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

A Form of Jetpack?

On the back of this behemoth, there appears to be four thrusters. Missing Mandible 20:33, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Page Name

Any way we can shorten or condense the name for this and the Halo 4/5 mantis? I get that's it's title but I mean man is it ugly to look at with all the caps locks and stuff.—This unsigned comment was made by Crisperstorm (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I believe we've tried several iterations but they don't seem to be consistent with the general naming conventions used. If you can propose a shorter name that is appropriate, we are all ears.— subtank 05:09, 21 May 2017 (EDT)