AT-AT vs. Halo Scarab

[YoGurT]

AT-AT v. Scarab: Both are about the smae size; the AT-AT is a lttle bit bigger. AT-AT's are weak behind its "head" (the "neck"), and by taking out its legs. The Scarab is suseptible to small arms fire. The AT-AT probably has the advantage as far as weaponry goes, but not by much. Considering the circumstances, I would say that the AT-AT would win. The AT-AT has very good armor, and could probably withstand quite a few plasma cannon blasts. The Scarab, on the other hand, will become weakened and it will lower. Fire a few blasts inside the Scarab and chalk up a win for the AT-AT. For you Halo fanboys out there: it might help your argument if you study both sides.

You really have a point. But I still think that the striders in half life 2 would win.

Hmmm........Striders. It takes approximately 7 RPGs to take out a Strider, and they are only damaged with explosives....they have very long legs, leading me to believe that they also have a weak spot in the legs. I still take the AT-AT. The AT-AT would use its dual, chin-mounted Taim & Bak MS-1 fire-linked heavy laser cannons, which are much more powerful than any RPG.

You may be right, but striders are very quick, and it is its own pilot, meaning it can think for itself and move accordingly. Its legs are very reinforced, and the ends are very sharp. The laser beam from the strider that took down the safehouses in HL2: EP2 seemed pretty deadly...

I would say they are about even.

[briddler13]

^ You have a point....

[splinter7k2]

scarab

[briddler13]

scarab

says the halo fanboy

[YoGurT]

scarab

says the halo fanboy

says the starwars fanboy

[briddler13]

scarab

says the halo fanboy

says the starwars fanboy

I only said that because he didn't present any facts or arguments. If the Scarab had won I would have said so. I researched the topic and came to a conclusion. He looked at it and said, "Halo pwnzorz" and made his choice.

[YoGurT]

scarab

says the halo fanboy

says the starwars fanboy

I only said that because he didn't present any facts or arguments. If the Scarab had won I would have said so. I researched the topic and came to a conclusion. He looked at it and said, "Halo pwnzorz" and made his choice.

Haha I know, im just messing with you. This thread is just too negative.

[CrimsonS.E.A.L]

AT-AT. These things are at a disadvantage to The scarab only in regards to speed. the scarabs only hope would be to circle the AT-AT, then rape it from behind. however, since we are taking crew into account and someone said the scarab has a crew of ten, gimme a break. The AT-AT hosts a company, which is 130 soldiers FYI. AT-AT

[XIX SNIPERS XIX]

I think the AT-AT because it has WAY more endurance and the Scarab has no way to trip it

[Deer Rat]

Well It depends on which Scarab we're talking about, if it's halo 2 one it wins hands down, because the only way to kill it is to get inside and take out the control area, and there is even a deployable energy shield that blocks all entrance to the control room. Also it's laser can turn about 3 meter thick walls into a pile of molten scrap.


In halo 3 the laser is much weaker, slower, you can get into the control area much easier and you can take the whole ship down with just one grenade.


So...
Halo 2: Scarab
Halo 3: AT-AT

[MLo]

Well i still think the Super Power Might Of the 4x4 could win, i mean come on," Ford Tough." ha ha. But on a serious note, I mean come on AT-AT hands down, and if it doesnt win, The Sith and Jedi would destroy Master Chief, and The Arbiter and all the Elites he could get in 1 year. And for any of you who wants to challenge this. The Sith And Jedi can simply just hit away the bullets and reflect them, and if they get there energy swords, they can actually move the lightsaber diagnolly instead of just up and down and side to side, ha ha. Im sorry i got off topic with this, Lmao

[CrimsonS.E.A.L]

if the at-at lost, the halo scarab got lucky