Talk:M6 Spartan Laser

There is no way I'm going to remember that name... --Dragonclaws(talk) 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Weapon/Anti-Vehicle Model 6 Grindell/Galilean Nonlinear Rifle The same name people will get confused is it isnt called that.--Harmphrey 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Harmphrey Harmp hr  ey  21:24 3 2009


 * In my opinion in appears to be just a folder hierarchy that starts at Weapons then breaks down to Anti-Vehicle Weapons and then the actual weapon "folder", the Galileian Nonlinear Rifle (W/AV M6 G/GNR). What other reason would there be for having "Weapon" in the title? -- Esemono 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maby thats what bungie listed it as before naming it? some companies do that. They give it names like 'item/carry/c320' or something like that. 15:37 - 2/2/07

You should ask Bungie that. Until you change their mind, we're keeping their name for their rifle. 22:37 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At 98cm, This thing is definetly shoulder mounted, and looks like it weighs as much as a Rocket Launcher. 15:41 - 2/2/07

Laser closed chamber
Should I put in this image of the laser in its unused state?PX1'7'3 06:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Made for Custom Edition, not an official source, so no.-- 4 scen  06:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't regarding the game, its regarding the laser, which is of course canon. PX1'7'3 01:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness against large vehicles
Someone put in the article without a source that the Spartan Laser doesn't kill wraiths in one hit. I am wondering if this was true for the beta or not, and any youtube links or bungie/egm posts that confirm the Spartan laser's effectiveness agaisnt Wraiths would be great.

I'm the one that changed that, and while I don't have any links to prove it, I know it's true, because I've been hit by the Spartan Laser while in a wraith on Valhalla and survived, the same is true of Scorpions. Even so, if the person with the laser manages to hit the cockpit (where the driver is) on the vehicle, then it will still expload in one hit, but again, for this it has to be a direct hit on the driver. (Jay Hus 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Cost.
How do we know the cost?

It was in the artical on B.net about the Lazer.151.201.219.96 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Pwnage

Halo CE?
I'm removing the little line at the bottom about the "inspiration" for the Spartan-Laser, because for the moment it is baseless speculation and/or rumour-mongering. if it turns out to be true (meaning if Bungie admits it) then please, by all means, put it back. besides, it was a poorly written sentence anyway, referring to the writer him/herself, and lowered the quality of the article. -- SpecOps306 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Lasers
That is a lens flare. Presumably to show that the laser flashes.

Perhaps the beam splits seconds after the first firing? You know, like it diffuses, this could cause the spalsh damage that Frankie was talking about.


 * Actully, it's just one beam if you keep the Spartan Laser straight. If you are moving if you fire, the lasers will separate, i think. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --B le mo http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In forge mode, there is a glitch where whenever you switch to monitor mode just before the laser fires, when you switch back occasionally three or more shots fire out rapidly. Sgt. Raynor 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that Bungie couldn't/didn't create a continous beam for the laser. They programmed it to fire continous projectiles, but very fast so that you don't see the laser's "trails". It travels about as fast as a sniper rifle's bullet, but at a high rate of fire since there is no other projectile in Halo 3 that stays there for more than a second in the air. So Bungie had to make multiple beams for the laser.PX1'7'3 02:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)(forgot to sign,siged later than edit)

kaboom
if its a rifle why dos'nt it look like a rifle and looks more like a rocket luncher
 * Whoever you are, while your argument doesn't make any sense -- you are actually correct. A laser cannot possibly be a rifle.  Rifle's get their name from special grooves in the barrel (called rifling).  A laser generally doesn't have a barrel, much less rifling in that barrel.  A laser has an emitter, not a barrel or action.  Therefore it is, in fact, errantly named. ElFroCampeador TALK [[Image:Marine Corp CPL.JPG|20px]] 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to get technical I guess we can't say Plasma Rifle anymore, should we call it Plasma-based Rifle-esque Weapon? Zuranamee 1:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Covenant weapons have their own names pronounced in covenant toungues. And that includes the Beam Rifle, unless I'm missing something. And I presume Bungie made it a rifle because we couldn't make it a 'gun'(guns fire projectiles), a 'cannon'(used for siege, defense, also fire projectiles), or a launcher(WTF laser launcher?!). But still, it'd be more appropriate to replace rifle with laser.PX1'7'3 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

name origin....
Did they call it the Spartan Laser in honor of the Master Chief and the other spartans or is it because only spartans are qualified(able) to use them?--0nyx Sp1k3r 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)BLARG!!!

I'm guessing the latter, since Lasers were still experimental at the time.--  digipatd | talk  | contact  | vote  | play  22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sergeant Johnson was the first UNSC soldier to fire the 'Spartan Laser' It is believed that Johnson is a member of the first Spartan program (though it wasn't called the Spartan program at the time). (Jay Hus 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

It's most likely called the Spartan Laser because only a Spartan can lift and use the laser unassisted. Johnson is the only Marine to use the Laser, and he could be a possible Spartan I. You can give it to a Marine in The Covenant, but this is probably a programming oversight.Metaridley 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Design
Anyone notice that it looks a lot like a FN P90 with heavy plating attached to it?

Counterpart?
I was thinking of what the counterpart to Spartan Laser is, because it isnt Fuel Rod or Rocket, they are counterweapons, but I need to know if anyone agrees with me that the Gravity Hammer is the counterpart, they both take out vehicles, neither are support weapons surprisingly, they are relatively harder to pick up compared to SMGs or other common weapons, gravity hammer might be one hit kill, and im guessing it is; the only major difference is one is short range and the other is long range, but they have the same gameplay aspect: slowly take out everything and dont stay out in the open, because if someone starts shooting at you first with while you have one of these weapons, you will not win, unless they suck at shooting. --«ραcø»º²7| 05:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every weapon needs a counter. user: HaloFighter92

Origin
Should we add this? It would be only speculation, but where did the Laser come from? how would the UNSC develope it? I was thinking it was a result of the collection and study of Plasma Weapons the Spartans collected in Fall of Reach. Or, it may have been from a captured Sentinel or Sentinel "super beam" from Ghosts of Onyx, whose Beams were described as RED, and would kill in one hit and chop down trees with ease.

Well honestly its all very much speculation with little evidence so don't add it. Also i doubt it would be from sentinels, plasma and especially the onyx sentinel laser (as how would the UNSC of researched it? Nobody left the planet after the attack began and the only time anybody went there was during the time when the SPARTAN laser would of already been in use. --Ajax 013 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Im guessing, after the elits joined the UNSC they taught us how to make a laser-based weapons and this was the result. the reason it has to charge up is becuase of our primitive knowledge of lasers. infact, the plasma rifle itself (A true covenant weapon) has a small charge rate. The only species that truly understands laser is the forerunner (i spelled that right, Right?) since the sentinel beam has no charge time. So im guessing the spartan laser was manufactured using covenant technology. My reason why is becuase it only shows in halo 3 (when the elites were part of UNSC) and the reasons above. PsychoThunder

Spartan Laser WAV M6 GGNR
Do you think we should rename this article Spartan Laser WAV M6 GGNR as seen in the Halo 3 Manual? --EliteSpartan 6:17 August 17, 2007

Why not but lets wait for the approval of the admins. Spartan-G007 XBL gamertag:SpartanG007 (currently have red ring of D3TH)

Well the names are exactly the same, the only difference are a pair of /, probs just for ease of printing and to stop confusing newbies :P. --Ajax 013 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey it is an abreviation. Clavix2  TALK TO ME Things I done 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Two Lasers
Does anyone else think that it is worth noting in the trivia section that the Spartan Laser given to you by Johnson in the battle against 343 is considered by the game to be different from other Spartan Lasers? What I mean is you can have a normal Spartan Laser (obtained by killing Johnson), and you can also pick up the infinite-charge one that he has in your second weapon slot. I have a screenshot but no Xbox Live, so that's moot. Fred 12:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we atleast move this to Galileian Nonlinear Rifle
The official name is too long I think we need to shorten it to Galilean Nonlinear Rifle. Do we really need to call articles by their full name. Also,according to the spell check, it's Galilean not Galileian-Darth Scott 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We call the weapons by their full name, Scott. That's the policy here.--Sp art an- <font color="Black">781  <font color="black" face="Arial">Comm<font color="black" face="Arial">CSV 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which policy HP:MOS doesn't say it.--Darth Scott 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a policy about it somewhere, but I forgot where. Check with the admins. I know it's a new policy to call weapons by their full name/designation. --[[Image:BR55HB SR Battle Rifle.jpg|50px]] Blemo  http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif <font color="#A9A9A9">TALK • <font color="#A9A9A9">CONTRIBUTIONS • <font color="#A9A9A9">SERVICE RECORD • <font color="#A9A9A9"><span style="font-weight: light;" title="Loser. noun -- Anyone that is dumb enough to stare at a message on someone's signature for no apparent reason. You reading this pretty much proves the point.">MESSAGE 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Video-wiki
Hi, I started a video wiki to show this weapon in action... found some nice clips and added some pictures from the gallery. Does anyone have a good clip to upload? you are welcome to do so and to add it to the rough cut. Thx, BryanP 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness against Elephants
I've experienced first hand that the Laser is utterly worthless agains the pilot of an Elephant. I used three shots on an enemy that was annoying me by driving in circles, and the Laser would pierce the armor - only to do no damage to the driver.

This would be worth mentioning if it hasn't...right?KaDin 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)KaDin

Nature of Beam Generation
"The ability of the Spartan Laser to destroy most vehicles may hint that it fires a directed energy chemical laser, an extremely powerful laser that uses chemical reactions to produce a controlled beam."

This line is nonsensical IMO a laser beam is a laser beam since no matter how you produce it the end product is the same thing a beam of light all lined up and flying in on direction. Its ability to destroy armored vehicles has nothing to do how it produces the beam only with the beams power output. The most powerful lasers of today are chemical lasers, but that’s mainly because of power and other technical limitations, and most laser envsioned as weapons are expected to be of the solid state or free electron type. This is because a gas or chemical laser just makes a very poor weapons as they require large amounts of highly volatile and toxic chemicals to function which are expended as the weapon fires.

The Spartan Laser has a “battery” and can be recharged, but no mention is made of replacing gases only recharging the battery. This makes it MUCH more likely in my view that it’s some form of free electronic or solid state laser which uses some type of permanent lasing material and electricity to produce the coherent light beam. With modern power generation a laser of the M6’s power and compact size is unlikely, but we also can’t produce nuclear bombs that crack moons or engines that produce enough thrust to allow something bigger then a Nimitz class aircraft carrier to fly in the atmosphere so such issues are likely of less concern to the UNSC.

If no one objects I intend to remove it as largely baseless speculation. (and not replace it with my own as neither adds anything to the article and I merely wanted to explain why I think it's wrong.) TK3997 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it uses Q-switching. Interestingly, the Galilean in the name does not refer to Gallileo. It refers to Galilee, a town in what is now Isreal where jesus lived for thirty years.  Specops306 ,  Kora 'Morhek  01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, where do you figure the Galilean in the name refers to the town? Usually, when Bungie makes references, it tends to make some sense. So a town... XRoadToDawnX 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bungie include a number of biblical references in their games, so i'd imagine that is one of them. -- ' Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek ''  Honour Light Your Way! ''' 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

'Nonlinear rifle'
Anyone have any idea what "nonlinear rifle" could mean in this context? What's more linear than a laser? --Andrew Nagy 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a misnomer. <font color="#666666">Smoke  04:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

343 Guilty Spark
I have adjusted this page time and again, and the laser is the ONLY WEAPON that can harm 343 guilty spark in the final level of halo 3. I have tried it on every difficulty and every possible scenario. i have opened up with the rocket launcher and done nothing. i have waited on johnson to blast spark and crack his casing then hit him with the launcher. I have hit spark at every single stage of his health on every single difficulty. ONLY THE SPARTAN LASER WILL KILL HIM! -SuperMac
 * I have killed him with the rocket launcher. --<font color="Black">Lieutenant <font color="Silver">Commander''' 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Firing 105 battle rifle shots will crack his shell, but you probably cant find more ammo for it, so you can only damage 343.User:PsychoThunder

Someone survived 4 shots
I have read that some people have survived 2 shots however we were playing on custom games when someone reported surviving 4 shots from a spartan laser! User:Kig

It's true, if you brush past someone with a Laser without hitting them directly, it will only lower their shields. 82.47.154.99 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More than 2x scope
If you use the scope on a battle rifle than switch to the scope of the spartan laser you see the spartan laser has a longer scope range than the 2x zoom of the battle rifle.

Spartan Laser
This weapon is awesome. Great Work!

laser
is it spartan laser because only spartans are strong enough to hold and fire the weapon without help or being blown back b recoil? maybe?

That can't be the reason, as the weapon is only a little heavier than two loaded M249's(M249 loaded ~ 20 lbs.; an average Marine [in reality] is usually packing well over a hundred pounds during long-term autonomous field operations) and LASERS DO NOT RECOIL. THEY'RE NOT FIRING A PHYSICAL OBJECT FOR F*CK'S SAKE!!! WHY DID BUNGIE MAKE IT RECOIL???

It isn't recoil, its just the shock that it releases that mae it seem to move backwards. It seems to recoil just because the wielder's anatomy makes it difficult to take the laser's backfire. A recoil doesn't come from projectile, it comes from HEAT.

Spartan Laser in Diorama
I have found not one, but two spartan lasers in the believe diorama. One is held by a marine, the other is lying on the ground. Check out these pictures, I need conformation.

Template
Fixed the weapon info in article, it was, rather whacky. looks fine now. Also moved the quote template below the weapon template cause i know on another wiki having the quote above an infobox can cause unusual things. 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonlinear?
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the rifle is called nonlinear? The line of fire seems pretty linear to me. No One Special 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called that because Bungie didn't read the primer on how give military weapons realistic nomenclature, correct operation, or true-to-form function. This weapon would realistically be called a linear anti-armor directed energy weapon, much like the RAVEN device is an explosive-disruptive DEW. Non-linear calls to mind one of several sonic-based crowd-suppression DEWs currently under trials and development. Griever0311 05:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) US MARINE

Rename
Did everybody understand the reason I put this on renaming voting, or it's clear? -

Not quite, you say that the link to the page redirects incorrectly?  Vadamee  22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to User:JEA13/Pictures. This is a subpage of my userpage. If you look under the name of the page, where it sais "from Halopedia, the Halo Wiki", you will see a thing-link that is like this:


 * < User:JEA13


 * So now, this page is a subgage of the Weapon page, as you can see under it's name.


 * < Weapon


 * Get it? -

- I suppose. — K o  u  g  e  r  m  a  s  t  e  r  s  05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As per your reason. Nicmavr  Concorde    Take Off   Speed of sound!  13:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do it. <font color="#666666">Smoke  04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

--<tt><font color="#7BA05B">Odysseas-Spartan<font color="#4B5320"> 53 </tt> 04:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Halopedia is not a democracy. We are reviewing on this issue.- <font color="#FF4F00">5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Template:Title would remind visitors and users that the title appears incorrectly because of technical restrictions, thus solving this minor problems. In my opinion, having  is not a significant problem to the article itself; it doesn't ruin the article's quality or readability and users/visitors could always click on it to review other weapons.- <font color="#FF4F00">5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are right. :) - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Glitch
"There is a glitch in multiplayer where the laser will shoot 3 beams but use the energy of one."- this is quoted from a particular user regarding the triva of the spartan laser.

Can anyone prove this with a video clip or someting??

Or just disregard it?

09:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree Galacticdominator 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Particle beam Weapon
"Others have suggested that it fires a Particle Beam, similar to the Particle Beam Rifle used by the Covenant."

- Some idiot

I'm getting pretty sick of having to remove this kind of crap. The weapon is a laser, yet people insist on adding speculative alternative types of DEW. While we don't yet know exactly what type of laser it is, how it operates, or what wavelengths it uses or its power requirements, we know for a FACT that is IS a laser. Anything else is fanon. -- ' Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek ''  Honour Light Your Way! ''' 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This page may soon become subjected to edit war.  It probably needs protection. With truth, <span style = "color:#2D1925; font-family: georgia, times">Jora 'Mantak -<span style = "color:#5D1A39; font-family: georgia, times">Battlenet -<span style = "color:#B7608A; font-family: georgia, times">Brothers-<span style = "color:#CCCCCC; font-family: georgia, times">Combat History -- 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I happen to come across it, first of all you don't you seem to understand that there are different TYPES of lasers. Now we do not know what exact energy it fires which is why it is noted as such.

Having had a considerable time to ponder what perhaps the M6 does fire, the most logical conclusion and considering I have questioned this particular thing to several individuals who are more knowledgeable on physics then myself have said that it could be a particle beam weapon.

For example, if you take a good look at the Galilean in saved films the very milisecond it strikes a target such as a Warthog, or a character, it does not instantly kill the object it comes into contact with, it takes a few frames (or miliseconds if you wish) before it registers the hit and destroys the target.

Also how a Particle Beam Weapon works is as follows: "Though particle beams are perhaps most famously employed as weapon systems in science fiction, the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency started work on particle beam weapons as early as 1958, two years before the first scientific demonstration of lasers. The general idea of particle-beam weaponry is to hit a target object with a stream of accelerated particles moving at near the speed of light and therefore carrying tremendous kinetic energy; the particles transfer their kinetic energy to the atoms in the molecules of the target upon striking, much as a cue ball transfers its energy to the racked balls in billiards, thus exciting the target's atoms and superheating the target object in a short time, leading to explosion either of the surface layer or the interior of the target. Currently, the materials for such weapons are "high-risk" and may not be developed for some time"

That is is exactly how the Galilean works, even the name Galilean relates to the Galilean transformation which partly deals with Particle Physics, which would mean the if you were to take a logical common sense guess as to what it would fire, it would be a Particle Beam. Nothing else has as much effective destructive force as a Particle Beam.

Now another thing you seem to jump the gun on is the fact that it is really not part of the article itself and is in the trivia section which is more open to questioning and such, the way it was worded was to take into account both the previous theory of it being a chemical laser, which mind you was actually part of the article longer then my theory of it being a particle beam was, and mine, it is simply there as a means for discussion or perhaps pondering. It is NOT there to definitively say it is or isn't.

I hope this has been enlightening to you, and I hope you will take more careful consideration before blowing up and removing something you may not understand. Durandal-217 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be more similar to a plasma weapon than to a laser weapon. Plasma is simply ionized gas--if focused into a beam, it becomes a particle beam. With truth, <span style = "color:#2D1925; font-family: georgia, times">Jora 'Mantak (Echo 9 2) -<span style = "color:#5D1A39; font-family: georgia, times">Battlenet -<span style = "color:#B7608A; font-family: georgia, times">Brothers-<span style = "color:#CCCCCC; font-family: georgia, times">Combat History -- 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm not a physicist, and believed the two distinct enough for it to matter. Thank you for setting me straight. -- ' Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek ''  Honour Light Your Way! ''' 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, mistakes happen, I'm glad I was able to help out and make things clearer. Coming back to this with what I know and understand I'd like to clarify something. First Jora(Elite 92, whatever) I wouldn't definitively say Particle Acceleration is just Plasma focused into a beam. From what I understand, Particle Acceleration deals with electrically-charged Elementary particles being propelled to high speeds. Much different then ionizing gas. You can think of Plasma (in how it destroys something) like fire, it does it from the outside and works its way in. Particle Beams, in a destructive way works like (and I'm sorry I cannot think of a better analogy for the moment) filling up a water balloon until it pops. It all happens from the inside out. Durandal-217 05:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartan Laser
I'm a new guy here, but the name is pretty long. So, I guess I wouldn't be able to remember either.


 * We've made Spartan Laser to redirect to this article... so problem solve. :P -  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartan Laser in the Human Starships
The UNSC to owe to have this type of weapon included in your heavy arsenal. Serious the same thing that the Spartan Laser though to major scale and with mas to be able in your ships.--H A L O Legend 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sentence doesn't make any sense...-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 20:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you used a translator. PX1'7'3 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image
Hey, I do this iamge for the change of the reticule from Halo 3 Beta to Halo 3, if any administrator can hear me and want to put it in the gallery, good. --Flood12345 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you remove the "Halo 3 Beta" and "Halo 3" text? It looks better without them.-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine.--Flood12345 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
Wasn't there flavor text somewhere once to the effect that the Laser was barely operational and rushed into production in desperation as the Covenant closed in on Earth, or something similarly inconsistent with its appearance in Halo Wars? I tried looking for it, but only got as far as finding when the weapon was first talked about (2006/10/27) and finding nothing in its Bungie.net writeup before giving up. --Andrew Nagy 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because the common belief that the Spartan Laser is an experimental weapon rushed into service in the last days of the Human-Covenant War is, amazingly, most likely to be complete fanon. To many Halo fans, this claim may sound perposterous, however, there is a good chance it is true, for these stated reasons:

- Because the Spartan Laser was only shown in Halo 3, players naturally assumed that it had been introduced to the UNSC's arsenal specifically during the time period of the third game, because, well, if the Lasers had existed earlier, wouldn't they have actually been in the earlier games of the Halo trilogy? Or perhaps just deserving of a small mention in the EU books, which Bungie considers canon? The reason the laser was not mentioned before was literally that Bungie has not thought of giving humans energy weapons at the start of the main trilogy. However, they had also not thought of giving the humans cool material like space elevators or capital ships (frigates) that could hover in a planet's atmosphere at the time, either. They also most likely hadn't thought of much of the Covenant mythology, technology, and biology that was highly developed in the beastariums of the third game. Just because something hadn't been mentioned yet didn't mean that it flat out did not exist until the game or book it was first introduced in. Same thing actually goes for Brute powered armor. (note: an exception to this rule is the Battle Rifle, which was actually mentioned multiple times to have been in weapons development up until right before the second game.) -Because of the laser emitter's very name.'Spartan' implies something rare and experimental, like the super-soldiers themselves. Fans should understand that this is most likely just a nickname; as explained a few threads above this one, perhaps the laser was first tested by a Spartan, or it, being a killing machine, was named by awed marines after another contemporary killing machine. Fans should also not assume only Spartan Program graduates can wield the laser; for instance, ODST's are capable of using it, as demonstrated by Halo 3:ODST (this of course implies that the common belief that the only reason marines can carry Spartan Lasers in Halo 3 is because of of a programming glitch is also completely, and utterly false and fanon). That is my argument for now. If anyone can find a link to a reliable source that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Spartan Laser was rushed into service for the Second Battle of Earth, I will happily back down. Contributions:72.196.207.203 04:33, 01:37, 24 June 2009


 * First off this has to be the most uninformed argument I have seen. No one has ever stated that the M6 was "rushed" into production. The technology most likely has been around for the course of the war but it has only very recently been deployed. Also this insult of calling the novels some sort of expanded universe is down right laughable. First of all the novels are not part of expanded anything, nor are they "considered" canon, they are canon. Things may be tweaked, or modified, but everything is still part of the canon.
 * Every element for the story of Halo has been there since the beginning, some items like weapons, vehicles, may not make it in one game, but is always somehow refined, tweaked and re used fr later games. For example the M6 Galilean was originally modeled and tested for Halo 2, it was not planned on being in the game, but the work done on it then paved the way for its inclusion in Halo 3. And every time something new is created, a long process of tying it into canon is done in order to ensure that everything fits perfectly.
 * As for its late appearance it is the most logical conclusion when you consider that if the M6 has been on the field for such an extensive amount of time, that at some point someone would try to mount a more powerful version on a UNSC warship, that type of firepower would change the course of the war, and give humans the upper hand in space battles against the Covenant. The UNSC would do everything in their power to make it work, the lives it could save, the battles they could win would justify the cost.
 * Because they have not means that the technology simply wasn't there yet, and by the time it is, we are already near the end of the war. Durandal-217 07:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please indent your comments by prefixing each line with a colon . This makes it easier to distinguish a really long comment from its really long reply. <span style="background:#AADDAA;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%">[[Image:DavidJCobb_Emblem.svg|16px]] DavidJCobb  04:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for irking you, Durandal; I was only attempting to respond in a thoughtful way to Andrew Nagy's above request for a link. He was attempting to find an original Bungie flavor text that specifically mentioned the Spartan Laser as being rushed into production (his words) or at least placed on the assembly line at the very end of the Great War. I simply explained why he might not be able to find such a link. By saying that the books are considered canon by Bungie (the ultimate authority on all things Halo), I simply meant that it was canon; at the end of the day, what Bungie says goes. I meant what I said in a positive context,and I apologize for not wording more carefully and accidentally leaving paths open for misinterpretation. I have also deleted the misplaced title and put our conversation under the proper heading.


 * We already know that laser emitters are mounted on ONI Prowlers; not to mention that ONI keeps many secret programs permanently hidden from the the public eye (Spartan III's would be a very good example of this). ONI could have possibly mounted military grade lasers on warships as a black operations project, kept secret by ONI for assorted reasons. Perhaps like the Spartan III's, they were used for suicide missions against Covenant targets, or were kept secret in order to ambush Covenant fleets (the Unggoy are known for monitoring human transmissions). This could be revealed later by Bungie in a book or game...but really this is all speculation until Bungie says this or something similar is so.


 * I concede that Ensemble screwed up in a few places, but I'm confident that Bungie will eventually tie up the loose ends concerning Halo Wars. You also appear from your contributions to other conversations on this page to be the resident expert, and I once again apologize for drawing your fire on something so trivial.