Talk:MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor

Archive
1 • 2

Armor Versions Organization

I think that It would be best if the Armor Versions section of this article was organized in a fashion similar to the Species section of the article about The Covenant Empire. An available picture of the armor may be displayed beside the synopsis where applicable. Is this a good suggestion? --Chris talk blog 11:59, 12 January 2011 (EST)

I'm actually working on it. :) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 12:04, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Scratch that, I thought you meant the Armor Permutation article. :P

This article is fine as it is, by the looks of it. Armor Permutation is where the mess is. ;) - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 12:07, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Discussion clean-up

This is a huge discussion page and most of the information on it is YEARS old. I suggest a clean-up. --ADinoSupremacist 19:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Fission Power

Where is it started that Mjolnir itself used fission at any point? Halo: The Fall of Reach states that the Mk. IV introduced in November 2525 used a fusion power pack: "John glimpsed veinlike microcapillaries, a dense sandwich of optical crystal, a circulating pump, even what looked like a miniature fusion cell in the backpack."

One of the citations in this article is page 45 of Ghosts of Onyx. All it says is: "MJOLNIR suit construction, maintenance staff, and recent upgrades to their microfusion plants" Never does it say or even hint that the upgrades were from a fission to a fusion power source.

Finally, the other citation comes from Halsey's Journal, specifically the Jan. 7, 2535 entry. Under the Mk. IV section, it reads: "Standard fusion power (critical improvement over the fission power source)."

Again, at no point does it state that Mjolnir ever used fission power. There's arguably an implication that it did, but the comment in the journal could just as easily be a reference to the power source for the old exoskeletons. In light of this, I think the mention of a fission power source should be removed, as there's no solid evidence for it (unless there's a missing citation somewhere). --Toa Freak (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2018 (EST)