Talk:Fall of Reach


 * Good work on the picture i didnt think of that --Climax Viod 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very professional. -- Spartan 1138 15:45, 16 October 2006)

Wait a second...
Where did we get this number losses from? All I can seem to find is the 12 million dead but there are no real records of Covenant losses. Jin Won 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How did they lose.
how did they lose like there were 13 sparterns there including john (the master chief)

man we were out numbered, out gunned and at a technological disadvantage....even with the spartans we were still screwed before the battle even begun. On a side note even if we did win those god damn split chin SOBS would just come back with a bigger fleet :(

also 13 spartans vs like 50 elites = elites win--76.188.238.12 22:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Modifying the timetable
I'm going to modify the time table in... let's give one week for objections. Modifications are as follows:

Battle End: August 30, 2552? to September 23, 2552 (Military Calendar)

Seeing as the bettle for Reach technically ended when all resistance was eliminated or neutralized, John-117 and everyone with him left Reach at this time as the last known survivors. Halo: First Strike Page 200 header.

Outcome: Ended with Covenant victory; Reach was glassed to "Reach was Partially Glassed"

Seeing as only the poles were glassed, this seems appropriate.

Supreme Commander of the Fleet of Particular Justice to The Arbiter -- Supreme Commander of the Fleet of Particular Justice

It seems appropriate.

68.35.73.108 07:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC) VikedaL

Bracktanus
bracktanus isn't in the battle of reach he is only mentioned by two grunts that are actually in the battle so i'm taking him out. - SPARTAN-410

Pillar of Autumn as a loss?
Should the PoA be counted a loss for the UNSC since it escaped and was destroyed later?


 * Erm...I think "losses" would go for if it was destroyed in the battle. If a ship escaped and was then destroyed in another battle then i don't think the PoA would count as a loss for Reach.Forerunner 06:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

losses
Perhaps it had 302 covenant ships destroyed but 12 millions of dead I dont think, we need infos. Chief frank 001 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

315 not 314
Keyes saw 314 ships in the main group, so when they jumped in system there were 315 ships.

Perhaps by the time they got there another covenant ship joined with the main group...Forerunner 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Look up ironic
Just so you know the fact that they already knew is coincidental, maybe also unfortunate, not ironic. 66.7.139.162

Incorret information
Before I start were it says that their are 315 Covenant ships that also includes the covenant carrier that keyes destroy before cortana told him about the 314 covenant ships in the fleet. One information that someone left out is about the 4 marines on the gamma station. They tell you all 4 names of the marines and someone left 1 out and that marine is PVT. Jenkins. The second incorret info is the 20 covenant reinforcement ships that come to help they don't exisit I reread the chapter and I can't find the 20 extra covenant ships that come to help so in other words it didn't happen and that makes the covenant fleet from 335 ships back to 315 ships.The leader of the covenant fleet on reach is the arbiter in halo2 and 3 you will know this if you watch the intro to halo2.

Battle of Reach in Halo Legends
Oh Legends is looking better and better. As I was watching this video for the fourth time, I took note of a few clips that depicted events that extremely similar to those in the battle:
 * At 0:22-0:26 a Spartan is seen observing a battle at night, with UNSC forces defending a row of bunkers and several large satellite dishes.
 * At 0:48-0:54 hundreds of Covenant ships are approaching a planet that looks very similar to Reach.
 * At 1:34-1:41 from the same fleet of ships, a CCS-Class Battlecruiser jumps into Slipspace with the planet, a UNSC cruiser and an Orbital Defense Platform in plain sight.
 * At 2:25-2:31 a CCS comes out of Slipspace behind a Halcyon-Class Cruiser near an asteroid field.

Anything to add? -  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  19:58, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Spartans present at Reach
I'd like to contend that First Strike, page 13 is a typo. From what I can gather, if we ignore Halo Wars and pretend like The Babysitter took place after 2541, then there were 23 Spartans present at Reach. My evidence?


 * -Halo: The Fall of Reach page 240

So, we can gather several things from this. First, there are at least eight Spartans not currently in attendance at this meeting (all of whom go on to fight at Reach). These nine are the three KIAs between 2542 and 2552, the WIA (which we're going to call Maria to tie up that loose end), three behind enemy lines (which is clearly indicating Gray Team), and Sam (was KIA prior to 2542). So, if we assume that these are the only people not in attendance, then there are 25 who fight on Reach, of whom 22 fight planetside (as John, Linda, and James take the space mission).


 * -Halo: Ghosts of Onyx page 173

A lot of fans have drawn a connection between this and the three KIA mentioned in the passage from TFoR, but Kurt and Randall clearly go MIA prior to 2542, which is the cutoff for those three KIA. This adds two more Spartans not present at Reach (Kurt and Randal went MIA prior to 2542), meaning only 23 were present and 20 were planetside (Sheila is one of the KIA mentioned in TFoR, and we're going to call Cal one of those KIA as well; lucky break for Studio 4˚C since I don't believe they stated a date for the sequences).

As such, I am going to change the number of Spartans present from 27 to 23 with these two passages as evidence. In the meantime, I've emailed Nylund to try and clear up all this whatnot.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COM 08:01, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly doubt if any of the numbers in the novels are up-to-date. There's been so much retconning and contradictions that I would rather 343 Industries come outright and state what the deal is, once and for all, before they do anything else with the Spartans. And then, of course, there are the original Red Team and Cassandra - why did you leave them out? I'm not sure what the deal is with Maria, but I'm pretty sure that Cassandra was the Spartan wounded in action. By my count, then, the number should be 22 Spartans at Reach, with only 19 fighting on the surface.


 * After that, the numbers get even more confusing. A number of Spartans can be confirmed killed, starting with Malcolm during the drop, and three others. Then Joshua gets shot down in a Banshee, and the wounded Spartans are grouped into Team Delta and defend the Marine base - Will, Vinh and Isaac get separated from the other three Spartans falling back to CASTLE Base. We don't know what happened to those Spartans. Likewise, we also don't know what exactly happened to Team Beta, who defended the Orbital Defence Platform generators. And later, Vinh and Isaac get lost after setting charges for the rest to get away. Their fate isn't made explicit - the reader assumes they died, though they may simply have been separated from the rest of the group. That leaves nine Spartans possibly only MIA.


 * I doubt Vinh and Isaac survived, so that still leaves three lost members of Team Delta, and the members of Team Beta. So that's...seven possible surviving Spartans on Reach. Whether they made it off the planet or not, I guess we'll never know - or if we do, it won't be for a while. As always, if there's a discrepency in my working out please point it out.. --  Administrator  Specops306  -   Qur'a 'Morhek   10:29, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say that I was ignoring Halo Wars, because their use of Red Team was a flagrant disregard for existing canon, and those of us who frequented their forum brought that up over and over before the game released (as far back as when they were first alpha testing), to the point where they started locking any threads about it. And we've never really received confirmation that Cassandra is a Spartan. And even then, the one document she is mentioned in was still going on about Coral and the Sharquoi. As for the ground forces in FS, the main thing that would be changes is the number of Spartans that were left to defend the generators. 20 were aboard the Pelican, and 4 died during the sky dive. That leaves 16. Those 16 are broken into four teams: a team of 3, a team of an unknown number, a team of 6, and a team of 3. Thus, Beta Team would be comprised of 4 members, though they could retcon out some of the 6 in Delta Team to make Beta Team larger than the rest (maybe 4 in Delta and 6 in Beta). But yes, it is quite a mess, and I think Nylund made a few errors himself (I think he may have intended for Kurt, Randall, and Sheila to be the three KIAs he mentioned in TFoR, which would bring the numbers up to 25 and the ground forces up to 22), but I'm really not happy with the policy of killing of Spartans for dramatic purposes every time new material is created.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COM 21:43, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

The number of S-IIs are confusing as it is, factor in NOBLE Team which we still aren't clear about their involvment and possibly other Spartan-IIIs it becomes near impossible to deturmine the exact number of SPARTANS present at Reach. Although the Battle of Reach has forever been shrouded in mystery, it's always been the greatest defeat of the UNSC and yet the number of combatants is never stated for sure, and as new contradictory material comes out the confusion builds, I with they'd publish a list of all combatants in Reach or at least the number of combatants and sort them into sections such as SPARTAN-IIs, SPARTAN-IIIs, ODST, Marines, Army Troopers, Navy Crewmen, Vessels etc. Obvious I'm dreaming but it would be nice to clear up all the confusion Veros &#39;Murum 05:07, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie website
Would the information provided on Bungie's website on the reach section be considered canonical? On the website it states that while earth was the economic and political strength, that Reach was the main military centre with most shipyards than anywhere else. VARGR 03:56, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's canonical, it's already added to the Reach article. Plus, that particular thing is nothing new, we've really known that for a long time now.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:31, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Halo Legends Supercruiser Retcon?


After watching the (leaked) Origins Part II, it seems that the depiction of the Battle of Reach seems to have a retcon or two. Most notably the appearance of one Covenant Assault Carrier in the center of the Covenant fleet. Now, as we know, Halo: The Fall of Reach describes a gigantic Covenant ship in the center of the fleet. The ship had several Energy Projectors and was several times the size of any UNSC ship. However, we were not given a ship class or name, leading many to dub it the "supercruiser". However, in Origins, in the place where this "supercruiser" should be, is instead an Assault Carrier. This leads me to believe that the "supercruiser" was an Assault Carrier all along. Now, I know Assault Carriers were encountered before Reach, but maybe it was simply Keyes had never seen the ship before? -  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  22:08, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider anything from Orgins canon at the moment.--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 22:39, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, tough luck, it's 100% cannon. Just because for the sake of good storytelling, they made depictions inaccurate towards the end to signify Cortana's Rampancy, doesn't mean it's awful and should be non-cannon. Origins was almost perfectly consistent with canon. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  22:46, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no indication that the events of Origins II show Reach - I got the impression that it was simply meant to represent human colonies in general. The episode is left intentionally ambigious whether its actual events being depicted or just one of Cortana's delusions from Rampancy. Besides that, Origins was one of the better episodes - if it is absolutely canon, I wouldn't have a problem with it. --  Administrator  Specops306  -   Qur'a 'Morhek   22:58, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it's Reach. For starters, the planet in question looks almost identical to Reach, it had several Orbital Defense Platforms, it was attacked by a fleet of hundreds, and one of the biggest clues in my opinion, was that it showed a Covenant Cruiser emerging from Slipspace behind a Halcyon-Class in an asteroid field - something that happened exactly to the Autumn in The Fall of Reach. And yes, Origins was one of the better episodes, if not the best, in my opinion. But, this is starting to get off topic. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  23:03, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
Since the UNSC Navy and ODSTs were fighting on Tribute as well as Reach, I propose that we remove the Space conflict from this article and onto its own. Battle of Epsilon Eridani works, as it actually was thought throughout the system as opposed to the orbit of a single planet.--  Fore  run  ner  01:13, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be a good idea but we should reduce the section about the space battle and put a link to the Battle of Epsilon Eridani. C F 0 0 1 02:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Covenant Commanders
Should we put down the Unnamed Prophet as a Covenant commander? User: Dandarro nahan

Change name to "Fall of Reach" (Passed)
I have two reasons for suggesting this renaming, so I'll get to it. First of all, and most simply, it is never actually referred to as the "Battle of Reach" in-universe, always "Fall of Reach", or simply "Reach". Secondly is that, in official warfare, "battle" is used to denote general engagement, "siege" is used to denote an attack on a base or fortress, whereas "fall" is used to denote the destruction or capture of a major stronghold or significant military vantage point. As we know, Reach is continuously referred to as "military stronghold" and "humanity's last stronghold before Earth". For these reasons, I suggest a name change. -  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

--  Fore  run  ner  00:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Halo Encyclopedia refers to the engagement as the "Fall of Reach".
 * 2) Edward Buck's profile states that he has survived the "Fall of Reach".
 * 3) Microsoft's Halo site refers to the engagement as the "Fall of Reach" in its timeline section.
 * 4) Bungie uses "fall" when mentioning the engagement, for example: "Reach Falls 2010"
 * 5) "Battle of Reach" has never been used
 * 6) Finally, Halo: The Fall of Reach.

Support

 * 1) - As per above suggestion. - Black Mesa.jpg  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) - I guess it makes sense. - Halopediaman 20:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Alternatives to "Battle": Massacre - where one side is completely obliterated without mercy and may include civilian causalities, ie. My-Lai... Siege - where one side hold a stationary well-defended position, while the other encircles it in the intent of capturing it, ie. Siege of Leningrad... Fall - where one side completely collapses, usually a powerful or important one. Examples include the "Fall of France", where around 6/8ths of the nation was quickly conquered, despite its powerful Maginot Line, and the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which spelt the end of South Vietnam.--  Fore  run  ner  20:54, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) - After checking with others through the Irk... -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 22:33, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) - Fall, Siege, massacre, they're all the same. It wasn't much of a battle though, that's for sure. Unless you call all one-sided conflicts battles. Commander Silver Leaf.PNG  Kougermasters   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  00:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Normally I'd oppose such a measure, but in this instance I don't see why we shouldn't change the name and add the "also referred to as the Battle of Reach." The opposite, I suppose to the measure proposed in the opposition; well before Subtank stroke it out that is.... -- Lord Hyren 04:54, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  - Since Halopedia follows some/most of Wikipedia's system (i.e policies, naming conventions), I suggest just adding   instead of renaming the entire article. These would be the best examples. :) -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 20:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * As such, I believe all articles should follow suite, unless of course they are "sub-battles".- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 20:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It mostly depends on who named it. It's officially called the Siege of the Atlas Moons, for instance.--  Fore  run  ner  20:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more to the fact that it's always been referred to as the "Fall of Reach" in-canon, promotional material and otherwise, I believe we're the only ones that refer to it as "Battle". A name change would keep it more consistent with canon. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please list the sources of Fall of Reach being the canon title of the engagement. Reach is going to fall! I don't recall reading or hearing it as the actual title of the event. Other than the title of the novel, of course. :P - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 21:03, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

God! I hate it how people want it renamed!!! ITS FINE THE WAY IT IS!!!
 * 1) - As per above --Staff Sergeant Darrell Mac, UNSC Air Force 22:13, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -It's fine the war it is.--Freelancer Texas 00:19, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Covenant fleets
Here in Halopedia, it seems to be a common assumption that all Covenant vessels and forces involved in the Fall of Reach are part of the Fleet of Particular Justice. This is one of those things that have grown from being simple fan assumptions to commonly accepted "facts" in this wiki.

We shouldn't just go and assume that all ships involved were part of that one fleet. For example, in Halo 2, Thel says that he "followed [the Pillar of Autumn] with all the ships in [his] command". What's under his command is the entire Fleet of Particular Justice, and the entire fleet didn't obviously follow the PoA to Halo. Most of them remained on Reach; if the Fleet of Particular justice had been the only fleet, they would've all pursued the PoA. In addition, in the Halo: Evolutions story The Return, it is revealed that the unnamed Shipmaster, the commander of the Fleet of Righteous Vigilance, also took part in the battle. This alone proves that other Covenant fleet units were present.

For all we know, the Fleet of Particular Justice may have been a fraction of the Covenant force that likely consisted of many different fleet units. This is why we shouldn't just automatically assume all the Covenant ships and forces in the battle were under the Fleet of Particular Justice, only the ones that have been confirmed to be part of it. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 14:03, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * While only a few ships go after the Pillar of Autumn at start, others soon follow. Reaching the Autumn's intended coordinates in less than half the time it takes the Autumn to get there, they discover Installation 04 and head back, bringing more ships with them. We know from Halo 2 that Thel was the commander of the entire Covenant operation in that system, meaning that only the Fleet of Particular Justice went to the installation. When returning to Reach, Cortana says that some of the ships in the fleet remained to finish glassing the planet and to collect the illumination. Does it say in "The Return" at what point during the battle it was that he arrived? For all I know, he could have arrived after the fighting ended and simply aided with the glassing.-- Forerunner 14:39, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was stated that the Shipmaster from The Return destroyed three orbital MAC guns, which means he was present at the very beginning of the battle. Also, even if the entire Covenant force was under Thel's command, it doesn't still mean his fleet was the only one present in the battle. There might've been several other fleet units serving under him, for example, the Fleet of Righteous Vigilance. Also, was it ever said in Halo 2 that Thel commanded all of the Covenant forces in the system? Thel noted that he "followed with all the ships in his command", which could imply that there were other ships that weren't under his command. Also, don't think it would be reasonable for the entire Covenant force to just stop glassing the planet to pursue a single cruiser. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 14:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is why only a few ships followed the Autumn initially. Thel suddenly having a large fleet when the Autumn arrives suggests that others followed after the Autumn had already entered slipspace. When I said that he was the commander of all forces in the "system", I was referring to Soel. If there was another fleet during the fall of Reach, it would have left the system at some point between the Autumn leaving and the survivors returning - as evident by the remaining ships orbiting Reach being part of the fleet, as said by Cortana (who had access to Covenant networks and would be able to confirm this). His quote suggests that there may have been another fleet during the battle, and that he lied in front of the High Council.-- Forerunner 14:58, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I thought you meant he was the commander of the operations in Epsilon Eridani, which can't really be proven. Indeed, if there were other fleets in the battle, they would've most likely left before the events of Installation 04, after Reach was glassed. They wouldn't need a full-scale fleet to guard a glassed planet. Also, they sent some ships to attack other planets in Epsilon Eridani, like Tribute; it would seem likely that after Reach was glassed, they burned the other planets and left, leaving only a small military presence to scour the wreckage and dig the artifact under Reach. About Thel lying to the High Council, which quote are you referring to? --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 15:22, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * "I followed with all ships under my command." Cortana confirmed in First Strike that the dozen or so ships remaining at Reach when she got there were from the fleet that went to Installation 04. They had apparently stayed back to finish glassing the planet. As Cortana had access to information that would confirm their fleet of origin (being inside the data core of the flagship of High Charity's defence fleet), she would be correct. This would go against Thel saying "all". Perhaps he wanted to look like he had more ships at Installation 04 and thus appear that he had more control over the artefact study/retrieval and intelligence gathering operations.-- Forerunner 15:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Coding cleanup
You guys seem to have a lot of coding that isn't recognized by wikia (e.g. ). You may want to change that or replace it with or  - Heatedpete
 * Nah, it's because of the slideshow feature that's causing the error.. Some idiot geniuses thought having a slideshow of four images (note, emphasis on four images) would be nice... should be fixed now.- Sketch ist 11:57, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's fixed. - Heatedpete


 * That was going on on the Halo: Reach page a few weeks before the slideshow update reached Halopedia. No tags were recognised, leaving their coding shown out. Templates using those tags were thrown all over the place with half of the infobox on the other side of the page as gibberish.-- Forerunner 14:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with "Raid of Reach"
-- Forerunner 15:41, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Dates retconned?
It seems we have a new, quite large retcon in our hands. According to the ONI Memorial in ODST, the dates for the battle are radically different from what we're used to. Now, that could be chalked up to error or the fact the plaque is just an easter egg, but now, we have new evidence supporting the change: the newest live action trailer shows the date "July 23rd 2552", which wouldn't make any sense in the original context (that is, if the battle began on August 30th). Considering how the date for the beginning of the battle was July 25th in the ONI plaque, the 23rd is probably the day before the invasion. That still leaves one day in between, but that may be the when the Covenant "advance force" arrived and the actual, full-on invasion hadn't yet began.

The new version is also supported by the note in the game's packaging, read by Brian Jarrard in the Reach unpacking video. "You are in possession of the most complete and accurate account that anyone has been able to assemble from the SPECWAR/GroupTHREE/Noble actions during the final weeks before the Covenant glassed Reach."

"Final weeks" wouldn't make a whole lot of sense were the game follow the original story, as most of the planet was glassed the day it was invaded. It seems they changed it to allow for a longer campaign (I saw this coming, really; if it were like the original, the campaign would've lasted for only a couple of hours). In light of this obvious retcon, should we change the page accordingly? --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 10:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, it seems that way alright. However, that would be a very large retcon indeed; the dates of Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo: First Strike, and indeed most of the dates in The Fall of Reach, including the Battle of Sigma Octanus IV and the entire time line of the Fall of Reach, are all dependent on when the Fall of Reach took place. For instance, the Battle of Sigma Octanus IV took place on July 17th-18th, which would place it a mere five days before the Fall of Reach if this is indeed a retcon; which would make little sense considering the time it would take the Iroquois to make it back to Reach, and the subsequent events such as the recalling of the Spartans and so on. This would also apply to the Battle of Installation 04; where it is explicitly stated that it took three weeks for the Autumn to get to Halo, and that the battle was in late September. And while I won't go into First Strike, I'm sure you know the magnitude of inconsistencies that would arise there, with the Slipspace time anomaly and all. So, my point is, that we should not jump to the conclusion of a date retcon until we are absolutely sure that this is the case; i.e. when Reach comes out. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  11:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm aware of this - However, it's possible that in this new timeline, the invasion was more gradual (somewhat akin to the Battle of Earth), with smaller battle groups arriving over the span of a month. The final fleet that overwhelmed and glassed Reach would arrive on August 30th like it did before. From then on, the events would transpire much like they did in FS. That's my guess anyways. The events in The Fall of Reach may have happened on the dates they did in the book, including the Iroquois arriving at Reach and John being debriefed, and later receiving his armor, only with the battle going on all that time. The PoA would jump away on the last day of the battle (August 30th), when the actual glassing fleet arrived and the last of the UNSC's defenses were destroyed.


 * That still leaves a lot of inconsistencies with the book, including the Spartans' mission to capture the Prophet: why would they be sent away when they would all be needed on Reach more than ever? Although it could be understood as an act of desperation: they already know Reach is going to fall, and they send the Spartans to take the fight to the Covenant instead of sacrificing them in a vain effort to defend Reach. Still, that doesn't explain why the PoA turns back and the Spartans are deployed to defend the generators, but it seems to be the only way to make any sense out of it. But I agree that we should keep it the way it is until we get more information and a solid confirmation on the retcon. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 11:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of your comment reflects what I thought of the retconned dates. *slashes own comment*
 * Perhaps capturing a Prophet hostage would buy the UNSC some time as to delaying the inevitable fall of Reach? Like a bargaining chip, perhaps? It makes sense, seeing that it caused quite an uproar when John killed Regret on Delta Halo. Perhaps Reach holds more secret than what we know so far? So many mysteries.... - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's a retcon. It seems to me that the planet the Iroquious (and thus the probe) went to just happened to be one the Covenant already knew about. Besides, all we know of the battle is that the components of the Epsilon Eridani fleet defending Reach were eliminated within (I think) 4-6 hours on 30 August. They gradually begin to bombard the planet, finishing (with the exception of Menachite mountain) some time before 15/16 September (the former or the latter being the day the Ascendant Justice reached Reach - the latter being the "revised calendar date" some time after rescuing Halsey, where they work out the correct date). From what I recall, they began glassing from the poles, leaving up to eight days of fighting with surviving UNSC groundforces. I don't remember much about the novel, but I'm sure the PoA simply picked up an emergency transmission addressed to all ships - if you were being attacked, would you personally message each ship individually?-- Forerunner 12:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm not sure you're fully aware of what we're discussing. We're talking about Reach potentially retconning August 30th to July 23rd, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  12:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably an error. I was saying that if this isn't an error, then the probe attached to the Iroqious obviously wasn't the first to find Reach - perhaps the Skirmishers were sent ahead to look for information regarding other worlds (ie. Earth) before the humans got a chance to wipe the systems. Yeah - it probably meant August instead of July, though it wouldn't mess with the timeline if it was July.-- 12:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * No they said they were going to do something that would quote "take issues with" here but in all honestly they've truly screwed the canon up, how the hell does the events in fall of reach still happen if the dates are all wrong. They've essentially taken all the books and flung them out the door. Not just in terms of the events of the game but the events of the books themselves. It's hilarious when you read the last part. Durandal-217 16:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember when ODST and Halo Wars trailers were released. Many people looked at the limited content and came to the conclusion that they were non-canon. It turned out that as they obviously hadn't played the game, they couldn't see that it really was canon (Flood in Halo Wars; Regret not destroying New Mombasa, etc.). For all we know, Winter Contingency actually takes place on 23 July, while the rest is on 30-31 August.-- Forerunner 17:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * "For all we know, Winter Contingency actually takes place on 23 July, while the rest is on 30-31 August." That makes no sense. Durandal-217 18:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought Jugus has already pointed out the obvious approach taken by Bungie to resolve this issue; they had stated that the Fall of Reach occurred earlier than what we already know in Halo 3: ODST through the ONI Memorials. Perhaps those who read the novel took the event too seriously... Maybe the Fall of Reach did occur earlier on in early August after the Iriquois returned to Reach to deliver its report of Octanus. Somewhere during the return, several Covenant ships traced and attacked the planet (which is when the game comes in. It also explains why there weren't many "lightshows" in the Campaign trailer over Reach) but the UNSC on Reach manage to repel the early Covenant forces until they encountered the 700 Covenant ships (which is covered in the novel). Am I wrong? - <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, in the new timeline, the actual battle for Reach itself takes place between July 25 and August 29. At first, the Covenant forces come in with smaller groups. On August 30, things happen pretty much like in the novel, except that the Covenant are already on Reach, they just come in with a bigger force, wipe the rest of the UNSC resistance out and glass Reach. The PoA escapes and Red Team goes underground. As for the events that happen in between, like John being debriefed at Camp Hathcock, the briefing for the mission to capture the Prophet in the auditorium and John receiving his Mark V armor, we'll just have to assume the battle for Reach is taking place all that time. Unless, of course, the UNSC managed to destroy the initial Covenant force and it took some time for them to mobilize another one. In that case, there would be a gap in the fighting much like the one that was originally assumed to be between the "first" and "second" battles of Earth.


 * Judging by the dates shown in the memorial, I'm still fairly certain Halo: Reach will end on August 30 and the time anomaly won't be included. The time anomaly doesn't even affect anything else than the people at Installation 04, causing them to go back in time a couple of weeks when they return to Reach. Events before that shouldn't be affected by the crystal. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 18:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly how I view it.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * So if the Covenant are already on Reach by August 30th explain how NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. It just makes no sense, it's the most moronic thing you could ever come up with in a story, it is loony-toons level ridiculousness. If the Covenant invaded reach on July 25th it would been known throughout the military, no one would be that stupid enough to risk millions of lives on "we need to keep this a secret and build up our military resources". They would have already evacuated the entire planet by that point and nobody would have been that surprised by the real assault by the Covenant as they were in FoR. Durandal-217 19:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is quite simple: the magic powers of retcon. Bungie decided to make the battle longer, so the idea that the invasion happened on August 30th isn't true anymore. According to the new timeline, everyone obviously knows that the Covenant are on Reach by Aug 30 since the battle has been raging for weeks; they're not surprised, except maybe about the massive size of the arriving Covenant fleet.--<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 19:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Look - we know very little about the campaign and the game's plot. What we do know is that Halo: Reach takes place over a longer timeline than just 30 August, and that an advanced invasion force is there days before the Fleet of Particular Justice arrives (personally I think it was a coincidence that Iroqious led them to Reach, if the advanced force was already there). Just wait for the game to come out and we'll understand. We thought that all of Halo Wars would be on Harvest and that there was a second battle of Mombassa in which John participated in. Just wait for more information to come out before turning this into another "bungie fucked up the timeline" discussion.-- Forerunner 19:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, it's obvious that it was kept secret - you're the one who's being moronic. Otherwise, nothing would happen on 25 July, let alone 23. -- Forerunner 19:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's keep it civil...- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 19:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It just shows me that they are not serious about Halo canon anymore. You don't establish a story and stand by it for 10 years and then at the last second erase what you've stood by. That's just contradicting yourself and it makes you (bungie) look very stupid. That right there is not how you create a universe or tell a good story. What's even more depressing are the people who are willing to stand by this disgraceful move by bungie and go so far as to insult others because of it. Durandal-217 19:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out, Bungie didn't write The Fall of Reach. When it comes down to it, Bungie created Halo. While I respect Eric Nylund and still think he's the best Halo writer, it's Bungie's story. I don't like retcons, but complaining about it's not going to help either. And knowing Bungie, they don't just do things like this for no reason. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 19:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * To Forerunner - it was mentioned in one of the campaign previews that the full-on invasion begins just after Winter Contingency, as the UNSC starts reporting Covenant activity all over the planet through radio. So, keeping the invasion secret from July 23 (or 25) till August 30 isn't really possible. It's a retcon; we'll just have to live with it. On a related note, I'm guessing this hasn't been explained at all in the Fall of Reach reissue? That would've been the perfect chance to change the events of the book when they're retconning it anyways; from what I've heard, they hardly changed it at all. Oh well. An opportunity missed. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 19:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they've got a good reason, otherwise they wouldn't bother to change it. My question would be then, for now, should this article hold the "newer" information, or the old Fall of Reach date? ''Tuckerscreator' 19:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think its a dishonor to not only the incredible work of Eric Nylund who is a fictional genius in his own right, but it is a dishonor to all of us who stood by Halo. We are not entitled to anything, but we support halo because of its great fiction, gameplay and multiplayer. When all we ask for is a product that continues that foundation, and what we get is a game that on the principle founding of halo (telling a good story) is ignored by throwing out all the work that Nylund, Brannon Boren and Eric S. Trautmann help bungie create is just dishonorable. I believe, or try to believe in honoring people doing incredible work, but when bungie clearly ignores that for the sake of creating what they, and only they want, It just burns my soul. Durandal-217 19:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not ignoring Nylund, just adjusting. If they were ignoring Nylund, then they wouldn't have collaborated him him to create this. Changes happen, remember when Miranda Keyes's actress was changed? Best not to get too attached to it, changes happen, and who better to change it than Bungie? ''Tuckerscreator' 19:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * While I acknowledge all the points made, I just can't see it being that there was fighting on Reach weeks before August 30th. Yes, Bungie have retconned before; all minor, and none that affect the overall story. But this is huge, it completely alters the story, and I just don't see Bungie doing that, it would be self-destructive to Halo, and indeed hypocritical, seeing as Bungie have always stood by their creation, and altered it to a minimum. And so many problems arise from this; like why, as Durandal pointed out, practically no one knew that humanity's second most important planet was under Covenant attack for several weeks. ONI are good at covering up; hell, they managed to hide that humanity was on the verge of extinction right up until Earth was attacked, but there's no way they could have hidden a continuous battle on Reach from its own occupants and military defendants. Again, none of us can know exactly what the story is regarding this inconsistency until the game comes out, but if Bungie wanted to make the battle last longer, they had no need to change the dates. A large portion of Reach was left unharmed after the orbital bombardment, and we've never explicitly known how big the portion was; they could have made it as large as they wanted to have a big enough selection of locales to play in, and used all the time from August 30th until September 14th, to set Reach. I can accept an advance invasion force of a day at the most, but as I have said, there's no need for them to change it to weeks. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Theory on dates
I have a different thoery/idea that may or may not have been explained. In the first Remember Reach short, the soldiers and their superiors at HQ were only talking about Insurrectionists. We know that prior to Reach, their activity had been quite sporadic and their forces hadn't been seen in large numbers. However, what if the July 23rd, 2552 date refers to the beginning of a campaign on Reach in response to a resurgence in Insurrectionist activity in the inner colonies, whereas the August 30th date refers to the initial invasion of the Covenant's Fleet of Particular Justice? For those who've seen the footage from GamesCon 2010, you can see that the battle taking place in the background of the opening cinematic has been removed and the plot of it revolves around reports of Innie activity around a comm relay.

Adding in the dates from the Memorial at ONI Alpha Site in Halo 3: ODST, it could be surmised that the UNSC High Command didn't know of further activity from their forces on Reach, leading them to believe that the Covenant swept through the colony in just a single day. This is supported by the meeting in HIGHCOM Facility Bravo in Sydney in the first days of September where COL James Ackerson informs the Admiralty that Reach has been lost and no efforts should be undertaken to rescue survivors. In addition, First Strike proves that forces were still active on Reach in late September. Then again, this is just some batshit insane speculation. :)

Have a good one and please tell me if there's anything I missed or screwed up on!

Rawr,


 * That seems a reasonable theory. I guess none of us realized it never explicitly referred to the Covenant being the enemy on Reach for those dates. Right or wrong, it's more reassuring that it could simply be Microsoft screwing up rather than Bungie turning canon upside-down. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  20:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * As a guess, it's as good as any. I guess it's pointless to debate this until the game is out since the discussion will go nowhere with the info we currently have - all we can do is speculate (not to say there's anything wrong with it). I'll just hold on to the hope they'll keep the retcons to a minimum and what I described above doesn't turn out to be true. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 20:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a good theory, but the problem just snaps back to the retcon. If they've really changed the dates, it opens a big wound for anyone to dig in and rip out vital things. If Reach didn't fall on August 30th then who's to say that whole section in Fall of Reach ever happened, because despite that Halsey is speaking with Auntie Dot, people get the impression she is talking to/about Cortana in some form. It just becomes so much more easier for somebody with enough persuasion to completely void the novel. And it extends into First Strike as well, because its already implied that Halsey knows NOBLE Team is a bunch of S-IIIs, it just begins a domino effect that potentially can destroy everything everyone has worked on for the past decade. So even though you point out Ackerson's discussion in First Strike anyone could, again potentially bring the point out that it never happened.


 * And the other question becomes as Jugus mentioned earlier, if they really have changed the dates why didn't they establish that in the re-release of FoR it would have been the perfect opportunity to correct halo canon, but they didn't which again continues to show either a level of incompetence or just showing that they don't care. Durandal-217 21:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)