Talk:Deutoros-pattern Scarab

Leg Numbers
Edited the number of Scarab legs from "four or six" to simply "four." No source given, and no reference to where a six-legged Scarab is ever seen. Ocean Soul 09:56, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Different Types
This page seems to be dedicated to the scarab of Halo 3. should there not be pages for the Halo 2 scarab and Halo Wars scarab? VanFlyhight 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the Scarab deployed?
Has anyone wondered how they get the Scarab from their starship to the planet surface? Unless its carried in parts by Phantoms, they would need some kind of larger landing barge for it, possibly the Covenant equivalent of the Albatross?
 * Or, maybe you could play through Halo 3, and notice that on The Covenant, they free fall, and have small stabilizing boosters to help them land. -Jakalope 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

note that on the cruisers there are gravity lifts, they may have larger ones dedicated to the scarabs

Scarab is Covenant species/Hunter variation?
I heard somewhere that a Bungie official said that the Hunters we saw in Halo 2 were just the "tip of the iceberg". Maybe the scarabs are types of hunters! They bleed orange, they have lekgolo worms, and when you melee the core, you hear the squishy flesh sound. And, there's apparently no driver. Think about it. Why would they design a weak point and weak joints?
 * This theory's been about since Halo 3 came out. About the 'weak points', anything that requires four direct hits from a Scorpion to get temporarily disabled is hardly what I would call weak. Also, think about the Halo 3 Wraith. That's got a lovely little disc on the back that can be used to destroy it really quickly. Same for the 'eyes' of a Phantom. All vehicles have a weak point for balanca reasons. -Jakalope 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct and will be confirmed on the assembly map on the mythic map pack. Watch red vs blue video on it for more. Josh40 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scarab AI
Does the Halo 3 scarab game AI really deserve its own section? --Justin Time 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarab Similarities to old Scarab, and deleted Fanon
I have majorly revised the Halo 3 scarab section, clearing up grammar and fanon (such as it being controlled by an AI).

I have also broken it up into (slightly) more readable chunks then the wall of text, and added numerous observations on its features and decks that seemed to go unnoticed, based off my observation of the expanded game image I link on the last paragraph.

Hope you guys like the revisions and dont find any of the observations to be in confusing wording! ^_^ --Justin Time 06:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

repeat, repeat, repeat!
they've mentioned the "scarab has legs instead of the BPS like other covenant vehicles" about 3 times! it's quite annoying

confused
i've been wondering,how do they get the scarab in they're ships?the grav lift seams to small and the docking bays ARE to small?where do they store it and how do they get it back in there? Have u seen regret's assault carrier compared to IAC?, then comapre a peli to IAC then a peli to a scarab---cHR0n0sPh3r3

Halo 3
That walker in Halo 3 IS NOT a Scarab, look at it, it's smaller, its body is a different shape with it being more bulbous at the end, it mounts a smaller plasma beam that seems weaker and a second one on its rear and it seems vulnerable to small arms fire (as it suffers damage to its legs from rocket strikes). It is also purple, does no longer seem to have a lower interior deck and its legs are different. Ajax 013 July the 12th


 * The walker is very similar to the Scarab. Yes, it is possible that Bungie made another new walker, but it is just as likely if not even more likely that they remodeled it.  The Scarab in the trailer and the Scarab on this page are similar enough that they are instantly recognized as being such. --Forgottenlord 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this the same Scarab but has some new aditions. Clavix2 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Did either of you even compare the image to that of the Scarab. It would be like remoddling the Wraith into a Ghost. Apart from the legs and the green glowing 'eye' they look very much different Ajax 013 July the 12th


 * Maybe it's a Brute Scarab? They remodelled the Plasma Rifle didn't they? Why not the awesomely powerful Scarab? --[[Image:Final Goji.jpg|40px]] Lordofmonsterisland  "Roar to me"  18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something to think about. Scarabs were designed for mining, not combat. The ones used in Halo 2 were just makeshift weapons that Regret deployed. The major refinement to the legs in the screenshot seems to be extra armor - as could be the purple plating. This may be because they're adapting something that proved effective in combat to a combat role, or it could be the Brutes' natural instinct to destroy everything showing through. That could also, easily, explain the new thing on the tail of it - which looks like a weapon emplacement that could have been added. --Forgottenlord 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a comment should be added to the article about the dispute about what it is. If it ends up not being a Scarab, we can update appropriately when the game is released --Forgottenlord 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe i should note that 'inesctoid mining vehicle' was never expressly named as the Scarab. Also why would the scarab need to be refitted with extra armor, it was virtually impenetrable to start with and if they did 'refit' it, it seems a rather silly and extensive refit.

Considering they reduced its size by about 1/3, changed the positioning of its legs, changed the whole body size and layout, changed the legs, the main plasma weapon, removed the controls from its belly, rearranged its guns into two weaker plasma guns and a bunch of other 'extensive refits'...... seems rather silly as a refit, no? Also the new walker is vulnerable to small arms fire from missiles where as the Scarab is immune to even scorpion and wraith tanks (which the excavator is not). And this whole thing of calling it 'a different scarab' is like calling the ghost a 'different wraith'.

Ajax 013 July the 12th

The argument that the walker is vulnerable to small arms fire is an unfair assessment. Phantoms and Pelicans have, likewise, been made vulnerable to small arms fire. That was a redesign from a conceptual level rather than a redesign from inside the Halo Universe. After all, they destroyed a Scarab with moderate difficulty at the beginning of GoO and, IIRC, they didn't use things more powerful than rockets and tanks. --206.75.46.254 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Forgottenlord not logged in

Hmmm, a valid arguement but in Halo 2 its atchually ben noted as being impervious to UNSC weaponary. Its noted that rockets, .50 cal rounds and 90mm anti tank shells and between 8-16 ANVIL-II missiles seem to have no effect however either. Infact, according to Halo 2 its only weakness is boarding and sabotage from the deck underneath. Of course a counter arguement can be that the attack in the trailer only shows its legs and outwards objects being disabled and infact master chief easily obliterates an object just inside it rumoured to be its power core with a Spiker and makes it explode violently. Ajax 013 July the 13th

I have noticed that at one point in the E3 2007 trailer that the Chief and the Arbiter are standing and behind them is an original Scarab, it looks way more similar to the Halo 2 version than the new one. I believe that the new vehicle is not a Scarab. (By the way it might just be the Chief standing) Im not signed in but I am SPARTAN-101

Crikey! so many people batting the "is it or isnt it" about! Why cant it simply be a Scarab Mk II? Its a far more efficient and advanced design than the one used in Halo 2, but it is still recognisably a Scarab, regardless of design, purpose or armament.  Kora ‘Morhekee   The Battle-Net  My Conquests.  03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a very redisigned battle scarab, or perhaps a brute scarab. However it still retains, large legs, cannons, and decks, so I think its fair to call it a Scarab from now. And just because they can be damaged by weapons now means nothing. Phantoms can be damaged now, but they are still phantoms, right? --Justin Time 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument of it now being weak to small arms fire has nothing to do with it being a new vehicle. I think that was more of a gameplay choice than anything. After all, it is more fun to fight it and have it fight you than to follow it and kill some Covenant to board it. Also, if it has four legs, one or more large lasers, and is big enough to ride, it's a Scarab.ArchonGold 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In Halo 3 (The Storm), at the same time the "walker" appears, Sgt. Johnson says "Scarab! Find some cover." So obviously it is a Scarab.-- Joshua 029 23:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Action Clix Scarab
Just in:

| Scarab Action Clix

Should we use some of the pictures there? They're in pretty good detail... I'm just wondering, cause it's a toy... But it IS Halo 3 cannon.

UPDATE! In game shot from WizKids!

|H3 Scarab

--Reborn Knuxchao T C R  03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Size
To me it dosn't look any smaller than it was in Halo 2.And if it is smaller is possible if someone could find out the size or the measured difference?--0nyx Sp1k3r 01:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)BLARGH!!!


 * I agree, I do not remember there ever being a scale to the models and such, so I think calling it smaller is just speculation and should be removed. --Justin Time 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears to be much lower to the ground (using Warthogs and mongooses running around its feet along with master chief shooting at its underbelly in its vid) so if scale to existing vehicles and palyers isn't worth anything, i don't know what is. --Ajax 013 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Designation?
Where did the "Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform" come from? Source NEEDED!

It should read; "Scarab -Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform" the type 47 is more of a technical designation.

Halo 3 scarab made with lekgolo worms?
Yesterday when I was killing the 2nd scarab,after I killed the guards I went to the core after I took down the shield I noticed worms or something sliming around the sides I thought for a second killed it a nd ran for my freaking life(It started making that screeching exploding noise right as soon as I killed it.God bless Halo 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When you shoot the core it bleeds and the 'blood' looks like a darker colour of hunter blood. Alexspartan117 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, the Scarab isn't made of Lekgolos. -- Lordofmonsterisland "Roar to me"  17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not but they do appear to be driven by them --RSIxidor 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

you know when you flip the elephant, it says "wait what, how did u do that?"

Imagine if you could drive that scarab in multiplayer mode and somebody flips its, imagine what funny things it could say:):):).

There definitely seems to be something biological about the scarab. Zoom in on the core and it does look like a hive of worms(like the Lekgolo). Also, remember when you are storming the citadel and have to fight two scarabs. When the scarabs hit the ground, they lift up and roar in to the sky. Other than intimidation, why would the brutes piloting these monoliths make the machines roar in such a living way? Perhaps the Covenant are delving in to bio-mechanics? Its worth consideration.--ThePeoplesMark 09:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

After some investigation, shooting rockets into the core causes orange blood to spray out, and it does seem to pulsate. ProphetofTruth 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is correct that they are also made of the worms and will be confirmed on the assembly map on the mythic map pack. Watch red vs blue video on it for more. . It is at the end of the video Josh40 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2 diffrent models?
isn't the H2 madel Scarab and H3 version Scarab two difrent models and if so then shouldent they have seperate articals User:Captain-One

I agree. --75.30.177.66 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

you know when you flip the elephant, it says "wait what, how did u do that?"

Imagine if you could drive that scarab in multiplayer mode and somebody flips its, imagine what funny things it could say:):):)


 * Could you stop saying that in every section here? --[[Image:MA5C ICWS Assault Rifle.jpg|50px]]  Blemo [[Image:Progress Wheel.gif]] TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS • EMAIL • MESSAGE 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus please
I'm seeking general Halopedian opinion here, since the article is contradictory in this point. Is the Scarab a mining vehicle turned to combat uses during the First Battle of Earth, or is it a combat vehicle of a similar design to those mining vehicles seen by Kelly in First Strike? -Jakalope 04:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a combined mining-combat vehicle, which specialises in excavation but is fully capable of combat.  Specops306 ,  Kora 'Morhek 

The ones in Halo 2 are mining vehicles with guns, the ones in Halo 3 are walking tanks. VanFlyhight 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Grenades
The artical states that you cannot stick a grenade to the legs, but instead stick it to the top joint. I don't think that is the case because I have managed to stick a grenade everywhere to the Scarab and it would work.
 * I'm fairly sure they don't, but I'll check later on today. -Jakalope 09:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It could just be glitch on my part, but i'll play that level on another 360 just to make sure.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!
WHY? there is no longer even 1 image of the H2 scarab on here????!?!?!? How do you expect us to gain from this knolage if its absent??? --þ†öWè®¥ ^ (UNSC Fleetcom)(UNSC History)(UNSC Mision Log) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Um...just put one back in? I mean, come on! There's no need to yell.  Specops306 ,  Kora 'Morhek  22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a new image...
i added 2 new images to the page in the Variation section. the hgn scarab and the h2 scarab... both .png's. --þ†öWè®¥ ^ (UNSC Fleetcom)(UNSC History)(UNSC Mision Log) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fight Dead Scarab? How?
it says there's a way well how is it?

Digging?
If Truth wanted to dig (in Halo 2), he would have glassed whatever he needed to get rid of. They did it before... Why would they use a Scarab instead?

-.- Because they WANT what they're digging for... it's actually quite obvious Rpgfinatic5 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So they glassed to dig for the entrance to The Ark and it was totally unharmed. What could they have possibly done to anything he was digging for in Halo 2? Burned it a little maybe?


 * They didn't know the scale of what they were looking for. Scarabs are enough to uncover the usual structures, but this one was dozens of kilometers across. They didn't have the time. So they brought in ships to do the work. -- Councillor  Specops306  -  Kora   'Morhek  07:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

weird face
there is a weird face on the turret of the scarab. when its not glowing, you can see the face of some guy with long blonde hair? can anybody second that?

really? cool, can you post a pic on bungie.net? Jabberwockxeno 22:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that would be an illusion/difference in individual's perception or in other word; your eyes are playing tricks on you!-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 22:46, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

scarab back on track
When I weakened it, I destroyed it why did it is back on track.


 * This is a place to ask questions about the article, not about the actual subject of the article. Join a Bungie forum if you want to ask about matters such as this.

Article
This article needs a hell of a lot of work. It contains an excess of point of view, and an excess of out of universe content inside sections of the article that aren't similar to 'Trivia' and the likes. I'll be working on it on the next few days, however I encourage others of you to assist. -- Darth tom (talk)  09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or is the Scarab in Halo Wars barely bigger than a Wraith?Sith Venator 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So much for you "working on it", Darth tom. Now, I have saved this article. Lieutenant   Commander   Kouger masters  06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Article is Saved!
I saved the article, it is thanks to me. You're welcome CoH and Halopedia! Lieutenant  Commander   Kouger masters  06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lekgolo Drive Scarabs
Page referenced below specifically says the Scarabs are crewed by a Scarab Colony (at least Halo Wars version, though there is plenty of evidence from Halo 3). Personal opinion- They are only in the control center, as opposed to the Scarab being a super version of a Hunter (as some have rumored). Halo Wars: Covenant Field Guide: Scarab Entry

As I see it and have heard from numerous sources, a hunter pair is a single lekgolo colony divided between 2 suits of armor (a single lekgolo colony can't fit into 1 hunter armor, thus, hunters always come in pairs). Scarab however is a single colony, so it's piloted by the equivalent number of lekgolo as a hunter pair. Frogger1093 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No Separatist Scarab?
Why the Elites didnt have Scarabs thats insane if the have 9 CCS Battlecruisers and one Assault Carrier i suppose that they should have aleast one Scarab? But the problem is why Bungie did not created a separatist scarab for the elites?

They did: Halo 2, Great Journey level. We just don't see any in Halo 3, that doesn't mean they don't exist. -- Councillor   Specops 306  -  Qur'a  'Morhek  01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But i mean not in Halo 2 becuse if they could have one Scarab in Halo 3 i guess that it would be the same colors like the Phamtons and the Elites could give more help at the Citadel battle :) Anyways elites rocks

Halo Wars Scarabs SPOILERS
Can in fact be hijacked by Spartans, in mission 13 you can find the Scarab's crew running away and abandoning it leaving it motionless, an optional task appears saying "Hijack Scarab" or something like that.

In mission 7, Scarab, the Scarab is called a "Super Scarab". I think that denotes a difference, the Scarab is called a Scarab in the rest of the game. Could someone check on this.

on the trivia it says in "halo 2 johnson pilots scab but it is controlled by lekgolo" (sp) but in halo 2 it wasent controlled by lekgolo yet.

One Scarab Article?
Why do we have one article for Scarabs instead of one for the Super Scarab and one for the Halo 3 one? The article also seems to be devoted mainly to the Halo 3 Scarab.

The article is based around thew Halo 3 scarab as thats the one we have the most information about and the one that you have to deal with most in game.That Geek 08:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Define what you mean by "deal with most in game". Bungie based an entire level in Halo 2 for destroying one and Ensemble Studios did the same. I also think that we could learn as much as we wanted about the Super Scarab if we wanted to. I mean, on Halo 2's release date, we knew what piloted the Scarab, but with Halo 3, it took much debate and over a year to have it revealed. They're two different vehicles. -DinoBenn, 10:40, 31/03/09

the types
I think one is a heavier armored variant while the other has better armor but the legekelo cant control the heavier armor because of the weight while the purple one is just a light variant that they can move easily

Type-48?
The article mentions that the Halo 3 Scarab is a Type-48. Is this canon, or fan fiction?112 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Living
Shouldn't they be considered a living thing because they are simply a metal shell pumped full of lekgolo (as seen on assembly) with a conscience and everything and intentionally seek out and attack you without a visible driver like other covenant vehicles and hunters are the same way and we consider them as living lets see a dark teal metallic shell controlled by lekgolo worms who are the only way it can be damaged and will actively seek you out and attack with a large flowing green plasma weapon this describes hunters and scarabs they are either both vehicles or both living i say living but its not up to me i say this must be resolved --Ubuntu Dragon 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I think. It's almost like a really big hunter. Teh lolz! Bionicle+Lotr 21:10, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Thats also a really big sentence man--ASEC 01:38, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Wait
in character compatibility the Covenant species shouldn't lose the ability to drive in because no one sees it any more it should be what can drive it instead.A Elite can drive it in halo 2 from there on instead of only in halo 2--Sangheili wunna be 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * English, please? -- T  3   2  8 Bouncy Wiki Logo.gif 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't lose the ability because they are not driving them in the next game. Its like you see a guy drive his car to the store but the next day he walks there so he cant drive from there on.So all character compatabilityy should be changed to just who can and who cant instead of (Only in Halo 2)....--Sangheili wunna be 03:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what Sangheili is trying to say is, just because we don't see the covenent drive the Halo 3 Scarabs does not mean that they can't. They could be using an Autopilot

Only Lekgolo Drive the halo 3 scarab. Elites, Brutes, Spartains, johnson and whoever else can't drive the Halo 3 Model. it is basicaly a giant hunter. ~  ~   ~   ~   19:39, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

What has Halopedia done?
Okay I'm getting pretty tired of Halopedia's tunnel visioned, unimaginative, factual approach to the Halo universe. Everywhere I see someone deciding what is canon and what is not canon based on graphical representations from the games. For example, the Halo Graphical Novel Scarab is seen as non-canon and classed as simply artistic just because it doesn't look like any Scarab in the game, but if you didn't realise, Halo is fiction and 100% art. Seems to me like it's another type of Scarab. Don't get limiting everything. The Halo Universe is supposed to be expansive. Joshua 029 14:50, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

If every time a artist took some liberty in the Graphic Novel is taken as being straight canon, then there's gotta be a dozen new species of Covenant, a whole new species of Huragok, etc etc. Ajax 013 15:05, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * We are here to give out information based on what is accepted as canon, from an in-universe perspective. We do our best to enforce that, and people like me get annoyed as Hell whenever somebody starts bitching about how they think things should be done and are one-track minded. If you don't like it, no offense, but bugger off, because we don't want people whining all the time about something being done according to standards and how they do not think it should be done said way. - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 17:22, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

No I will not bugger off. For one, you are bitching about my bitching so you are a hypocrit. I am one-track minded? How so? If I'm talking about art here then I'm obviously not being one-track minded because art is very loose and creative. Actually, I think it is all opinion whoever says the Scarab in the Halo Graphic Novel isn't canon. Would it not better if you stated that it is POSSIBLY not canon and that there's a chance it could be canon, because then it's not set in stone. Don't say it as if it's law because it's not. If someone said that it isn't canon then it is because someone does not want it to be because it goes against what they feel to be correct.

And Ajax...a dozen new species of Covenant? Really? Come on...You can always tell what is an Elite and what is a Grunt. Hell even Frank O' Connor explained this about the Halo: Legends. It doesn't matter how an Elite is shown, as long as it looks like the basics of an Elite then it will be an Elite. Just because they changed something small like a gauntlet or a helmet or a colour of the eye doesn't make it an entirely different species. Now THAT is one-track minded. Did you not notice they changed the Jackals look about three times, all made by some artists? If that is acceptable then why isn't it so for other Halo labelled things such as the Graphic Novel? Joshua 029 14:08, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, it is considered policy. The canon-strict policy we have on Halopedia insists that only canon may be accepted into the articles. As for the Scarab, it is not considered canon because simply, it isn't. The Graphic Novel is mentioned in the article last I checked, but not considered canon, because frankly, it looks not a bloody thing like a Scarab. Finally, I didn't accuse you of being one-track minded, I accused you of objecting to the one-track mindedness. I'm dearly sorry, but this is how things are done. - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 14:19, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * The presence of the Scarab in Halo Graphic Novel is canon, but the way it is drawn is not. Now, that being said: The Graphic Novel is canon as long as it does not contradict the established canon information. This is similar to the situation of ILoveBees. Note that we didn't say the Scarab in HGN is not canon; we just stated that the visuals are contradictory and are based on the artists' perspectives. To support this, the story is canonical (it was authorized by Bungie), but the visuals of the story clearly are not. It is not a new Scarab variant; it is the artists' interpretation of how they see the Halo Universe as. This is why you can notice the Elites are drawn differently and why there's a early concept of Master Chief being shot by Elites in the Scarab image. This also applies throughout all stories and arts in HGN; the way the Energy Sword is drawn is different than the game and the way artists drew the Flood from the first two stories.


 * Also, in defense of Halopedia, yes, we do have a strict canon policy but we do not determine what is canon and what is not without a discussion/forum/consensus. That being said, we exchange speculations, ideas and knowledge in unravelling and determining the elements of the Halo Universe. Also keep in mind that Halopedia can be freely be accessed by everyone; false information can be inserted without notice if no one keeps an eye on that article.-  <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 22:44, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 Scarab and Halo 2 Scarab are diffrent models confrimed.
On the scarab's entry in the Halo Encyclopedia it says that they are two seprate models. (but true to it's name, it shows the halo 3 model in the main entry, where it talks about the halo 2 one).
 * Could you provide a specific evidence just to support this? Curiosity.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 17:37, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * On page 244-245 of the halo enclyopidiea. it refers to the halo 2 model as "Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform",        and the halo 3 model as "Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform V.2 variant" stating the v.2 "...has only one Anti-aircraft gun, but it does have 360-degree firing..." it goes onto state how "... it is shorter, but wider.." and says "... it is also controlled by   a colony of lekgolo." but the enclyopidia also ha a fair amount of mistakes, so it's level of canon is disputed. Jabberwockxeno 22:51, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * First, spell-phail. Second, based on your phail input of the Encyclopedia's description of the Type-47 Ultra Heavy Assault Platform, it seems that the Encyclopedia is just saying that the behemoth had an upgrade in their weaponry. Dire times during war requires modification to weaponry/technology.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  23:02, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but remember: a complete revamp means it becomes a completely new model. Halo 2: Original Scarab. Halo 3: New Scarab. Also, considering that the Halo 3 Scarab is destructible, I'd like to tell you that invincibility>destructibility and considering that the new model takes about two seconds to kill a Spartan head on, whereas the original killed anything that glanced it, I'd hardly call that an upgrade. The only thing the new Scarab has over the old one is that it can climb over buildings and the like, but that probably isn't too important considering that the Halo 2 one could just walk over or destroy those buildings. - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 23:11, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever consider that that is purely to balance out the game? Also, please remember that the Scarab in H2 are part of a level/scenery, doesn't have an AI and not an actual vehicle model whereas the ones in H3 actually has its very own model and also an AI. That being said, when it is part of the scenery, Bungie intended that scenery model to be destroyed at specific points of the location and by completing specific objectives whereas in H3, the model had an AI and is no longer part of the scenery, thus having its very own model which can freely move around the map and allowing the players to destroy it by using any methods they can think of.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  23:19, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand perfectly. What I am saying is that it has been completely changed, even in non-gameplay options. An example is that the H3 model is Lekgelo controlled, whereas the H2 one is controlled by a sapient being. It doesn't change the gameplay, but accompanied by the fact that they have given them a complete overhaul, it is, dare I say it, ignorance to think that the two are the same. - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 00:09, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's an oversight/ret-con by Bungie? H2 is known for its messy but interesting plot, themes and elements. But you might be right... --<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:17, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is an oversight by Bungie if it was featured in two games. However, maybe the games are just a retelling of events from Master Chief's perspective, and he's just making it invincible to go along with the story. Just saying... - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 00:24, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

"The decision to redesign the Scarab had as much to do about improving gameplay as it did with improve technology"

- Statement from Art of Halo 3


 * Just saying, maybe its just for artistic purposes, based on the statement above? Who knows, maybe the Scarab in H2 is also controlled by Mgalekgolo but we just never seen one. Like I said, an oversight by Bungie.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:31, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't controlled by Lekgelo. To finish the level in Halo 2, Cortana tells you to kill the drivers, and in the final level, Johnson drives it. But you might be right as to the artistic thing. Nonetheless, they are two different machines.


 * H2 was made before H3. Maybe, somewhere during the production of H3, Bungie had to bend the canon and change how the Scarab operates, thus in succession, had to come up with some kind of explanation to why this is absent in H2. Additionally, there are several aesthetic differences in H2 and H3, notably like the appearances of the Banshees (minor changes), the Frigate (minor changes), Marine's BDU (major changes) and the Scorpion Tank.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:48, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding to my previous comment, then how about the Scorpion Tank which had a major design overhaul in H3 from H2 and HCE? Should we consider that the three are different models?--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:52, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Ascension? We CAN spell FAIL. With an F. And did YOU ever think that maybe it WASN'T JUST for balance? They're two clearly different machines and you're completely missing the point of this argument. They're different looking. they have different capabilities. They have different armaments. And they most certainly are described as DIFFERENT machines in the encyclopedia. You would know if you looked it up. Whether they operate under different scripting AIs or have different weaknesses (etc) or gun strengths is completely irrelevant to your argument of classification and actually strengthens the argument as to why they shouldn't be considered the same. Get over it and stop fighting common sense AND canon. Phantastic Phail.--Nerfherder1428 00:15, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Refer to my previous comment, phailure-who-happens-to-phails-at-everything. Oh, lookie, a wikipedia link to phailure.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:17, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Or it's NOT an oversight OR a retcon and the prevailing theory that they're two different models for slightly different purposes reigns as truth. A truth that is confirmed thanks to the Encyclopedia. Thank you and good day sir.


 * To whoever posted above, shut it, because -Ascension- is right. The Scorpion is possibly three different models, but it is likely just artistic changes. The argument for the Scarab is that it has a massive overhaul and that the two are referenced as two different things in Halo Wars. Nonetheless, reviewing the argument, you are correct in that the changes are likely just artistic and gameplay related, but it also appears to be a large amount of evidence on my part. Anywho, until we have confirmed sources, let us just leave this as it is. - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 00:59, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * And your "phail" link goes to a wikipedia page about FAILURE and the internet's obsession with the word FAIL. Not phail. Sorry. We kin spail thangs hurr! Gawly! I'm sorry that I expected to hear a mature response from somebody who knows his stuff. Too bad I had to hear from you instead. It's an ugly thing to see an obnoxious S.O.B. submit to defeat.--Nerfherder1428 00:32, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you have just reached puberty just acquired Halo 3: ODST and now claimed yourself a hardcore Halo Fan, based on my observation and how you reacted to a publication of a literature. Hmm... let's analyse; the only immaturity I express is the use of an internet meme whereas little Nerfherder1428 here uses Caps-Lock and a rebellious tone in his/her comment. Note, the use of Caps-Lock in a comment denotes immature behaviour. So, who's the mature user? Phail!
 * Also, never refer to one source to verify an information. Multiple sources (H2, H3, HGN, Art Of H3) shows that the Scarab's appearance has some to do with: 1) aesthetic changes/purely artistic, 2) an oversight/ret-con or 3) Not clearly explained. Oh, and this is coming from a user with a more mature response than the above.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:42, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I had to reduce you to swapping personal attacks, but when will it end? We're here to talk about Halo. (Thank you General57. I DID come here to talk about Scarabs.) Let me humor you for a second. I own every piece of Halo literature and games. Comics, books, everything. I've been an active participant in this community for quite a while, only a while under Nerfherder1428. Analyze is spelled like that: Analyze. You (ph)ail to see that it is your excessive use of said meme that continues to annoy those around you. Caps-Lock only served to represent the spelling of a word and its subsequent emphasis. It's a common literary technique. And as I do believe you're still reducing yourself to petty arguments, I'm going to leave it up in the air about the most mature.


 * Also, I'm not using just one source. Does the fact that they are TOTALLY different in H2 and H3 not count? No source in the history of Halo has EVER said that the differences between the two scarabs are solely artistic in nature. So at least I have even ONE reference to my name where you do not. Even the quote you posted above about tech and gameplay improvements does nothing to disprove the myth that they are different. So could you please post exact references that PROVE you right? Because I can give one that utterly and completely makes me correct. And before that Encyclopedia (something that you recently fought for to prove canonicity), nobody was %100 percent sure which way the argument was going. Now we have proof. And yet you're still clutching onto unlikely theories like a malnourished baby to the teat of his crack-whore mother. Is the fact that they don't function/look/operate the same way not enough to convince you? Then you need to look through the Encyclopedia for yourself. If you want to argue the route that just one source can't be trusted, I can point out that many of the articles on Halopedia come from ONE game, ONE book, or ONE source. So again, please Mister, PLEASE find me some sources that make you God or don't bother replying. --Nerfherder1428 01:07, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Analyze is spelled like that: Analyze. - Ah, American English... should we conform to their version of English? No, thank you. I'll stick to British-English. meme that continues to annoy - Aye, and it's working quite well. I'm going to leave it up in the air about the most mature. - Looking at the comments, you started the attack and it's you who started this immature discussion. A simple message at my message board would suffice, but no, you took it personally. Pretty immature in my opinion. Oh, keep one comment to one paragraph. It tends to confuse other users, notably DinoBenn above. Comics, books, everything - Aren't you proud of yourself? Again, the use of Caps-Lock represents your immaturity. Now we have proof. - So, wait. In the Encyclopaedia talk page, you urged that the article should be considered non-canon for its increasing numbers of errors and mistakes and now you're claiming that it is the definitive source? Note that the Game Series is superior in terms of canonicity and we have to consider all sources. So could you please post exact references that PROVE you right? Regarding the quote I added previously, that was from The Art of Halo 3, an art book containing development/production notes from Bungie themselves. So, it is relevant to this discussion. The Encyclopaedia and its contents, however, is still under debate. Please refer to the above comments/my previous comments if you're still in the discussion of whether or not the Scarabs are different models.--<font face="century gothic"> <font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  01:23, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

People, stop arguing. No more insulting, kay? We are here to discuss Scarabs, not failure. So either stop getting off topic, or discuss this elsewhere on your own talk pages or boards. -- '' <font color="#000000">General5 7 <font color="#FFA500">B <font color="#dcdcdc">O<font color="#Ff0000">O! 00:46, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Halopedia is like chess, my friends. -Ascension- always wins, DinoBenn always knows what he is doing, and if you do not know the rules, you ultimately fail. Anyways, let us bring this to a conclusion. The Scarab article will be left alone, the encyclopedia will be considered canon with errors, and Nerfherder will stop using the caps button. Okay? - DinoBenn says "Fight to the End,  Never Give In"  [[Image:S4.jpg|18px]] 00:50, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ascension fails to come up with many valid arguments in the last few responses I've seen. DinoBenn does seem to know a bit at least. But I don't agree that we ignore a accepted piece of canon. Even if we didn't see the Encyclopedia for some time, There's no way I wold have ever thought H2-H3 changes were solely aesthetic. Even their operation (H2 is a machine, controlled by Elites and even Sgt. Johnson and one-point) is entirely independent and actually serves in the storyline. So as they are completely and utterly different and as they are stated to be just as different as we always assumed, I see no problem updating the article. As for the Scorpions, I agree that those minor changes could possibly be attributed to aesthetics.--Nerfherder1428 01:13, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * The both of you will cease this pointless exchange of insults and utter bullcrap or I will block the both of you. Understood? Get out of here and find something to do!  Smoke Sound off! 01:31, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

If the Halo 2 era scarab and the Halo 3 era scarab are different models than shouldn't they have different articles. They are very disimilar and this gives reason to have them on two seperate pages. (24.178.82.131 14:48, November 13, 2009 (UTC))(24.178.82.131 14:49, November 13, 2009 (UTC))(--24.178.82.131 14:51, November 13, 2009 (UTC))Drone232

Let's look at this in a calm collective manner. What I'm thinking is this (and I know it is not specificaly canon, but just go with me on this):Now look at the HAlo 3 Scarab. It looks pretty similar to the normal Scarab on Halo Wars. Now look at the Halo 2 Scarab. It looks Like the Super Scarab forom Halo Wars. ( And I'm not only comparing this to Halo Wars so no one accuse me of that) What I am thinking is: Halo 2 Scarab, being indestructable either for gameplay or canon, is most likely a Super Scarab Model. Because it is on The Prophet of Regret's ship, it could most likely be for maximum protection. Now the Halo 3 scarab. Since they are dropped from other less important ships with less important crew, it could be a normal scarab. (which would account for being easier to destroy.) This is just speculation but makes sense. As for the Lekgolo controlling the Scarabs, as I have said above, just because we see them controll it does not mean they ALWAYS controll it. It could be a type of auto pilot and the Elites/Brutes could controll them when they want to. Look at modern day planes. They have an autopilot that can be turned off at will. The Halo 2 Scarabs could very well have LEkgolo worms controlling them that can be controlled via the cockpit. Much like riding a Horse. The Lekgolo could have some sort of "harness" to controll them. But as I said, speculation, but it might make sense.--Rprince418 01:38, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Might be imagining things
But i could swear that looking at the belly of hte scarab in halo 2 that there were lekgolo worms, or at least big orange cables or something. I might be hallucinating but i am pretty sure the scarab in halo 2 is also controlled by worms. ralok 16:50, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, the bottum of the scarab in halo 2 has huge visible sections of lekgolo worms, and dont say they arent worms because the only other option is a inexplicable crapload of yellow-orange wiring, how come i am the only person to ever notice that the scarab in halo 2 has worms. ralok 17:35, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

so are we just going to ignore the fact that the scarab in halo 2 has worms on it? ralok 18:37, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus, dude. Show us a picture and calm down a little. it's been 3 hours since you posted it and it's the middle of the day for many on Monday. People aren't going to answer right off the bat.--Zervziel 19:01, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, dude, those 'worms' are actually its plasma tank. ~Enlightment~ ~Fighting Vandalism and Watching Unregistereds~ 20:51, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * How do yo propose i get this picture, i am telling you the worms are there. And i am not talking about the plasma tank that much should be clear, i am talking about the orange-brown-yellow areas around the tank, that are clearly not teal in color. It is only visible when the scarab is movie, the inert scarab seen on the final level does not seem to have them, but when it starts moving they become brown, the worms are most visible in metropolis when the scarab passess overhead zoom in and look at its belly. And keep and open midn when doing this dont go into halo 2 saying to yourself that this isnt true . . . it is very clear that these are lekgolo worms. ralok 23:54, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh also, before you be an jerk to someone because of what time it is, consider that you are not the only person in the world, and that your timezone isnt the only timezone on the entire planet, or that maybe someone else doesnt quite have hte exciting action packed mondays as yourself, and maybe they spend four hours a day pretending to work in a cubicle because all of the work they are provided is retardedly simple. ralok 00:28, March 9, 2010 (UTC)