Talk:M6 Spartan Laser

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

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)

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)

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)

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)