Talk:Shadow of Intent

Vandalism
Someone wrote in all caps "Halo sucks major dick!". I deleted it, but it may be on other pages. By the way, I am sexually confused.

Kage 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation
I Think The Shadow of Intent is the cruiser Haf-Jaw sayd to take i't back.


 * Um...Yes, Shadow of Intent is an SuperCarrier, the cruiser was a ssx-battlecruiser. Chances are that the tom cruiser was either destroyed at the Battle of 04, or is in quarantine with the rest of the covenant fleet there. Or that it is part of the Sepratist fleet. ProphetofTruth 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the Shadow of Intent is a Carrier, not a CCS-class Battlecruiser, and the vessel in the background of The Great Journey is also a battlecruiser, not a carrier vessel. =] Interesting idea though, Master Spartan. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Prophetoftruth It isn't a Supercarrier (look at the one in the graphic novel, although that may not be accurate), but it is more of an Assault carrier, with a few differences tot he one in H2. Um, also Master spartan guy, well, if you take a look at the CCS-BAttlecruiser, and then at the Shadow of Intent, you will notice that they look... very different. &quot;Die? Didn&#39;t you know?...Spartans don&#39;t die.&quot; 02:50, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Not an Assault Carrier
During its first appearance on the level Floodgate the Master Chief is told that 'This is the Carrier, Shadow of Intent'. Although this vessel and Regrets vessel in Halo 2 are similar there are subtle differences. This one, in comparison to the CCS class cruisers during The Ark for example, seems significantly smaller, and slightly more robust than the more elegantly proportioned Assault Carrier in Halo 2. As such I feel it needs to be renamed as a Carrier not an Assault Carrier. What do you think? A Monument to All Your Sins 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um...no. Did you notice that the CCS-Cruisers were all redesigned as well. Truth got an upgrade. The Control Room looked different. Its an aesthetic change and not a new ship design. Cortana looks different does that mean shes a new AI? The Grunts looked meaner does that mean its a new species? Get the angle I'm aiming for? ProphetofTruth 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand where your coming from but in all the cases you have described the individuals or objects in question maintain there names. An aesthetic overhaul is understandable in a new game for a new generation. But the Shadow of Intent is directly referred to as a "Carrier" by Rtas 'Vadum during the Level Floodgate. The Prophet of Regrets vessel is referred to as an "Assault Carrier" by Cortana during the Halo 2 level Cairo Station. Despite basic asthetic similarities the different taxonomy of the vessels is clear evidence that they belong to different classes. Shadow of Intent - Carrier, Regrets Flagship - Assault Carrier. This is the evidence supplied to us from Bungie via game script and as such is Canon.


 * Furthermore, on a similar theme, the vessel in Halo 2 shown fleeing the fires of Reach is intended to be the Pillar of Autumn, a Halcyon class cruiser. However it has a different design form that seen in Halo CE, other vessels in Halo 2 bearing the same object model are regularly referred to by Halopedia as Marathon class cruisers. I have seen no such indication as to that being their designation in the game but it goes unquestioned. What is your view on that? The Shadow of Intent is referred to as a Carrier as such it should be designated one, not based on aesthetics (although they add weight to the claim), but because Bungie, through game script, our gospel, has deemed it such. Same goes for Regret's ship being an Assault Carrier. Sorry if that sounded like a rant, it probably was I'll go take some chill pills;-) A Monument to All Your Sins 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay dude im sorry but your pretty much F***ing retarded. Just because Rtas Vadum says "This is the carrier Shadow of Intent it dosn't means its a carrier. Its a F***ing assault carrier. if you don't believe me go out and buy yourself the Halo encyclopedia. it says under the assault carrier section under famous ships of this type are The Shadow of Intent. On the note of Cortona she was simply being a little more formal to the admiral.
 * Secondly on the note of the Pillar of Autum. It looks different cause its a newer F***ing game. Bungie got better graphic computers in like 2003 than when Halo CE in like what 2001? So they made it look different so it could have better graphics. I mean what would the same graphic style pillar of Autum look like in Halo 3? And the Marathon cruiser looks almost identical to the Halycon class cruiser. Once again buy the f***ing Encyclopedia.Major Rawne 001 18:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondly on the note of the Pillar of Autum. It looks different cause its a newer F***ing game. Bungie got better graphic computers in like 2003 than when Halo CE in like what 2001? So they made it look different so it could have better graphics. I mean what would the same graphic style pillar of Autum look like in Halo 3? And the Marathon cruiser looks almost identical to the Halycon class cruiser. Once again buy the f***ing Encyclopedia.Major Rawne 001 18:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, But they also call Regret's ship a carrier later on.

''Cortana (O.S.): Regret is a name, Sergeant. The name of one of the Covenant's religious leaders. A Prophet. He's on that carrier, and he's calling for help.''

''Lord Hood (O.S.): Master Chief, get aboard that carrier, and secure the Prophet of Regret. This is the only place on Earth the Covenant decided to land. That Prophet is going to tell us why.''

Lord Hood (O.S.): "Cortana! Concentrate your fire on the first carrier. Admiral, do what you can against the second"!


 * Notice the flaw in your stance on the issue? ProphetofTruth 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing, The Cruisers are ccs cruisers and are much smaller then the carriers. As seen in the arrival at the Ark. That would imply that it its the 5km long assault carrier and not a 1.4k carrier. The Assault Carrier also has 3 engines on its tail much like this "Carrier" why would a smaller carrier need the propulsion system of a massive assualt carrier? Your opinion is pure conjecture. Following the lines of the story chances are that it is indeed an Assualt Carrier, unless bungie says otherwise Its safe to assume that it is one. ProphetofTruth 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. Aesthetically the vessel remains comparable to the one in Halo 2. However I'm still unconvinced. If you look at that first Ark cutscene you will notice the difference between lengths of the cruisers and the Shadow of intent in nowhere near as much as in Halo 2. An Assault carrier should be close to five times the length of a CCS class cruiser.The Shadow of intent seems closer to twice their size. Perhaps the Assault Carrier Article needs an update? A Monument to All Your Sins 07:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the scene where they emerge from the portal over the ark the Shadow of Intent dwarfs the ccs cruisers. The portal is massive, its called perspective. ProphetofTruth 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL Major Rawne 001 18:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Shadow is many times more massive in terms of magnitude, volume and general bulk of the vessel. But even from the vast virtual distance the shot is taken from, the Shadow still doesn't seem to be 5 times the length of a CCS cruiser. Check Stephen Loftus' size scale of stellar vessels, the Shadow isn't comparable to the length of the Assault Carrier on the the chart and there's no need for condescension, we're all entitled to an opinion.


 * To the user 71.33.36.68 I would apprciate it if you did not vandalise my additions. I wrote Carrier not Supercarrier, the History proves this. Do not attempt to invalidate my point through alteration of MY statements. If you have an addition to make, do so through a new section, with your signature. No one appreciates underhanded tactics. Your edits are recorded. A Monument to All Your Sins 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at Stephen Loftus's chart the ccs cruiser is three times smaller then the assault carrier not 5. If you look at the scene where hte elite fleet approaches the Covenant fleet the "carrier" is about 3 time larger than the cruisers. And I did not vandalize your edits. I corrected what is currently speculation. ProphetofTruth 15:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not aim that comment at you ProphetofTruth but if your ip address when not logged on is 71.33.36.68 then you did vandalise my talk section, if it isn't then you have no need to defend yourself. The user of that ip address edited just that one word, on my addition.


 * The ip address of the editor is recorded by the wikia and displayed as an identity on the History page. The fact that only an ip address was recorded in conjunction with the lack of a signature to the edit is somewhat indicative that the editor wishes to remain anonymous. Whether you believe my opinions on a talk page are right or not you should not alter them. I have no objection to changes on the article, a wikia page is free for public edit, that is their purpose. However additions to a talk page from a user should be edited only by the user that wrote them. To edit anothers is vandalism.
 * Anyway, 71.33.36.68 listen to the speech during Floodgate again, it says Carrier not Super Carrier. At no point in any Halo media outside of the novels has a Super Carrier been shown or mentioned. A Monument to All Your Sins 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you kept saying "Assault Carrier", it owuld get rather long winded, I mean "This is the 'assault' carrier, shadow of intent" it flows smoother as "this is the carrier, shadow of intent" I mean, you don't always call an aircraft carrier an aircraft carrier. You quite often call it a Carrier. Besides, the Shadow of intent does seem to scale to the correct size of a Assault carrier in my opinion. And if it were a "carrier", it owuldn't dwarf the Battlecruisers. And It is also a matter of perspective when it comes to the size. &quot;Die? Didn&#39;t you know?...Spartans don&#39;t die.&quot; 02:46, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "Die? Didn't you know?... Spartans don't die." on the whole comment he made. You can't win this one A Monument to All Your Sins. SorryMajor Rawne 001 18:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Shadow of Intent = Assault Carrier?
Dear Prophet of Truth and A Monument To All Your Sins,

I think both of you have valid points, but the aesthetic and tactical differences of the Shadow of Intent to Regret's flagship are minimal, and as per Truth, probably just a part of the aesthetic redesign. Furthermore, it's quite unlikely that the Shadow of Intent is a Covenant Carrier, which is three times as long as a UNSC Destroyer (see H:GoO), and that's 1455 meters. If the CCS classification is 1782.2 meters, and we look at the opening cutscene of The Ark (Level), the Shadow outmasses its escort battlecruisers. I think it's probably an assault carrier, but that's just my interpretation. =]

Cheers,

RelentlessRecusant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 19:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, its only difference to the Assault Carrier in Halo 2 is it's colour. It still has the distinct 'fins' and the whale like 'hooked' nose. Unless its something that looks JUST like an assault carrier, but isn't. Which i doubt. :P. --Ajax 013 12:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that notion. Regards, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SoI is Halo 2 Cruiser
I removed the statement about that because Vadum says something along "Arbiter I'm going to take the cruiser back." He says Cruiser not carrier, the assualt carrier used by regret either rejoined the fleet or was in another area of the halo, and the ship was cleary as ccs cruiser. ProphetofTruth 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again the speculation about the Cruiser has been removed. The Ship hovering by the control room was a Cruiser, not a Carrier. Whoever keeps adding that bit please, do everyone a favor, and replay halo 2. ProphetofTruth 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, stop being so picky about extremely minimal details, the Shadow of Intent IS AN ASSAULT CARRIER!! haven't you seen how massive it is? and it looks like regrets ship. anyways, for reason of fluidity, they dont say : "this is the assault carrier, Shadow of Intent". Rtas Vadumee was trying to get a point by saying that the "carrier's" name is the shadow of intent. IT IS AN ASSAULT CARRIER, Get it ?

Shadow of Intent = Covenant Assault Carrier
ok, stop being so picky about extremely minimal details, the Shadow of Intent IS AN ASSAULT CARRIER!! haven't you seen how massive it is? and it looks like regrets ship. anyways, for reason of fluidity, they dont say : "this is the assault carrier, Shadow of Intent". Rtas Vadumee was trying to get a point by saying that the "carrier's" name is the shadow of intent. IT IS AN ASSAULT CARRIER, Get it ? anyways that thing is huge...it's like 3 miles definitely

The Covenant. Possible Flood on Ship?
If I remember correctly, in the book, Ghosts of Onyx, one dropship made it ont oa ship quarantining High Cahrity and many more were infected with flood. How do the flood not get on the Shadow of Intent when a giant flood spore went straight in and out through the other side? Obviously, some chunks should have stayed in the ship and demolished any elite forces within(reference to Halo Graphic Novel, Last Voyage of the Infinite Succor, and also Halo:Ghosts of Onyx). But that's just my theory.M.C. Spartan 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) M.C. Spartan
 * If the fragments were anything like the ones that ran through the shield generator when we first meet the Flood on the level, then there would only be a few Flood forms to deal with, easily manageable by the Elites. The Elites are more than capable of dealing with a breach in Quarantine. XRoadToDawnX 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Recall this conversation between Arbiter and Veteran elite in Floodgate. "A single ship broke through our ranks, and we gave chase." That's the red elite. now for the arbiter. "we had a fleet of hundreds red elite again. "alas brother, the flood, it has evolved" this means that one ship broke through the ranks of hundreds. an infection ball, ifyouo call it that, could have easily overwhelmed elites in the carrier, as they have "evolved"

It was a piece of High Charity not a Flood Spore Grave G O D 01:09, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the infection ball was anything lie the fragment than even a Minor Elite would not have much trouble. A figment of your imagination and then some! 324px-Uk-sas svg.png ( Holonet ) 02:50, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Odd symbols on the bow?
All the other Assault Carriers don't appear to have this, yet when you look at the Shadow of Intents' bow, you will see odd marks, as if etched, or melted into it.&quot;Die? Didn&#39;t you know?...Spartans don&#39;t die.&quot; 02:53, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

All carriers have those markins on their front, look at the images. ProphetofTruth 00:50, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Flood Dispersal Pod
The article does indeed state that the ship shows no sign of shields when struck by the pod, but I would say by mere inspection, these pods are FAR slower and less massive than mac rounds, and we already know covenant ships can withstand multiple mac hits, even without shields, so I was curious if anyone else finds it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a hit from one of those things could do what it did to an assault carrier, one of the most powerful covenant ships. Or has it been agreed on that it is simply a plot device to make reason for you to kill Truth yourself, and not really canonical? Quakeomaniac 23:18, December 12, 2009 (UTC) It could be that it was debris from highcharity rather than dispersal material. It was moving at an extreme velocity as it exited slipspace. Shields might fluctuate in atmosphere? ProphetofTruth 00:50, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

I doubt both of your points ProphetofTruth. And Quakeomaniac i believe your right. Bungie just did it to make the game more interesting and fun. I mean the campaing would pretty suck if it ended with the Shadow of Intent blowing Truth to bits. But i doubt a flood pod or even a 2 mile long piece of High Charity could breach the Carriers Sheilds. ha see what i did their A Monument to All Your Sins. I did what Rtas did in campaing instead if Saying assault carrier i used carrier for short.Major Rawne 001 18:59, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick response, but there are a couple things that I might question. The idea of debris seems plausible, but it was one big object that hit it at once, and you can see in the cutscene that it is the dispersal pod, and secondly, shields on elite/spartan armor and sentinels work fine within an atmosphere, and I think its safe to say that starship and personal shields work on the same principle, obviously just a huge power difference. Any ideas? Quakeomaniac 03:12, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but wasn't the Shadow of Intent the lead ship in the major space battle above the Ark? Perhaps the Brute ships were able to damage its shield generator during the fight, but not able to cause any damage to the ship itself, and the shields were still being repaired by the time High Charity appeared.

Of course, the REAL reason is that it's simply an oversight on Bungie's part. But real-world explanations aren't that interesting.Son of God-Enel 04:59, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I say that it was the damaged shield one Grave G O D 01:11, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

personally i think its a momentum based concept. imagine if you will that this debris was intentionally "fired" when high charity was either in or just exiting slipspace which if i am not mistaken is basically faster than light travel. this means that a projectile going faster then the speed of light hits the ship. i think that that much momentum could very well blast through a shield with minimal difficulty. I also like to entertain the theory that power was being diverted from the shield to the ships "glassing" cannon due to damage sustained during orbital combat, and hence the shields were either weakened or completely shut down. Zimydoomy 18:19, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * If it had fired just before High Charity exited slispspace, Zimdoomy, then it would have been impossible for it to go faster than the speed of light. In real space, you can't go faster than light, anybody attempting to do so would get turned into energy. Plus, you can clearly see the thing travel, which means it was going nowwhere near lightspeed. The simplelest answer is just: Shadow of Intent had its shield off. Truth's fleet was destroyed, they wanted conserve power, and you need a lot of power for glassing. So they turned it off. ''Tuckerscreator' 21:30, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle Complement- To Scarab or Not To Scarab?
Regarding the vehicle complement listed in the Infobox, Scarabs are listed among the vehicle complement in the infobox for the Assault Carrier article, but not for the Shadow of Intent's article. Before adding it in, I wanted to make sure there was no mistake that Scarabs are part of an Assault Carrier's normal on-board vehicle complement, and it wasn't just an oversight. Because if it wasn't, then my time would better be served removing Scarabs from the Infobox on the Assault Carrier's article than adding them to this article's. Dewback rancher 01:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

We don't actually know if the SOI had scarabs, we know that Regrets ship did, and that some other ships did during the Battle of Earth and the Ark. DarkbelowHGR  CommbandD  01:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

it's possible that A) the compliment of scarabs was spent while the SOI was under brute control B) that they simply weren't used during the battle of the Ark due to the SOI having roughly ten seconds of being within (what i presume) safe deployment altitude before they got hit by the flood chunk and had to retreat

Post-March 2558
"Recent [frumentarii] records [naufragum] of three [speculatoria navigia] tasked to monitor vessel's fleet activities. Losses not reported to Human naval authorities."

- Catalog


 * Frumentarii: referencing the Office of Naval Intelligence
 * Naufragus (Naufragum): Shipwrecked, wrecked, a shipwrecked person or people, or something that causes a shipwreck.
 * Speculatoria navigia: potentially referencing Caesar's scout ships, noting them here as "light, and fast sailing vessels, generally used to explore coasts and to observe the movement's of the enemy's fleet." This role in the Fleet is provided by the "modern" prowler.

So in essence, ONI deployed three prowlers to trail Shadow of Intent and the squadron's loss, for whatever reason that might be, was subsequently not disclosed to Fleet Command.


 * Aw thank you for the Prowler info. I couldn't be sure based on my translation of "spy". Sith-venator Wavingstrider Fett helmet.jpg ( Commlink ) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it's awfully strange that a 100,000+ year old entity uses a language that wasn't around until some 2200 years ago and not the galactic standard, English. In any case, though, I kinda like the little Latin bits. Forces me to spend time researching some cool history stuff.

Hull
Since we know the Shadow of Intent's hull is made of nanolaminate hull plating, should we replace the "Unidentified Covenant material" with "Nanolaminate hull plating" in ship article infoboxes? Additionally, should a page be made for "nanolaminate hull plating"? - NightHammer (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
 * I think it's reasonable enough to extrapolate that Covenant hulls are made of the same material, so I'd say yes. Kind of like how we assume most Covenant tech is powered by pinch fusion reactors. An article wouldn't be too out of place, as long as it has enough content on the properties of Covenant hulls beyond just the name (gonna be tough gathering all that disparate info from the novels). But an article is definitely justified now that we know the name of the material. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 16:12, 7 July 2014 (EDT)


 * Alright, I will try to see if I can find enough information to see if an article is possible. - NightHammer (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (EDT)