Talk:HRUNTING/YGGDRASIL Mark II (D) Geyrion

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.--
 * 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".--

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&#39;ari 15:20, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Different variant of Cyclops Mark II?


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)