I was watching a few videos on YouTube and rewatched the Game Informer video on the updated warthog in H2A. Read through the comments and read one that said 343i used the wrong model, as the Halo 4 'hog was introduced canonically later on and would make it impossible to be present during the events of Halo 2. Is this the case when speaking strictly about canon, not about using the newest assets in the franchise?
I believe they mean that it could not canonically have existed during the Battle of Earth. However, I’m fairly certain that its appearance overrules that of the original, making it the canonically correct version of the M12.
In my opinion I think it’s best to avoid worrying about items being canonical or not. The concept of the hog is what matters- 4 wheels, 2 seats, with a swiveling gun in the back. Ask 5 people to draw/animate that (that are unfamiliar with halo) and you’ll get 5 different vehicles that all could be warthogs.
Imagine when (if) the halo tv show comes out, do you want to be perturbed that the warthogs look a little different or the ARs don’t have the lights in the correct places? Because that kind of stuff is guaranteed to happen.
Tying specific things like vehicle design just leads to dissatisfaction.
I remember reading something GrimBrother One wrote a while ago where he compared Halo to Batman in the fact that Gotham City has been depicted with different layouts many times. It doesn’t make one Gotham more canonical than the other- you have to detach from specifics and tie to the general concept in order to be fully satisfied.
His exact post:
> 2533274797632135;10:
> > 2533274825022855;7:
> > > 2533274824409174;6:
> > > You can always play with old graphics. I don’t think new graphics are considered as retcons.
> >
> > Except they are. Grim directly said that in a canon fodder.
>
> Let’s make sure we’re being clear here when quoting the ol’ GBO.
>
>
>
>
> > Q: In games with an anniversary edition (CEA and H2A), should we take new graphics as canon over the older ones, one example being the Gravemind’s massive overhaul.BaconShelfA: In most instances, the visuals depicted in an “Anniversary” edition should be taken as the definitive representations. The Gravemind as depicted in Halo 2: Anniversary is one such instance.__- Canon Fodder 4-4-15: Clarity & Grace
>
> Emphasis mine. In most cases, this is true. There is an important thing to remember here though (that I’ve said countless times before), canon is often times much more an exercise in “spirit of the law” vs “letter of the law.” The idea of the Halo universe in its most grand and fullest capacities should have room for the idea of different possibilities. The fact of the matter is that there will ALWAYS be “inconsistencies” brought about by a myriad of factors, from scope, to resources, to artistic differences. And while it might be frustrating to the more… unwaveringly-minded fans, the truth is that the universe is usually much more enjoyably (or at least less stressful, lol) viewed with a bit of flexibility built in to one’s interpretation. Trust me, no one takes this stuff “more seriously” than yours truly, but one will only truly find joy and understanding in the greater narrative when they are able to transcend past certain details they might struggle to find a concrete explanation for.
>
> How many times has Gotham City been rearranged? How many different origin stories has Spiderman had? Eventually, these iconic fiction franchises become much more than just the sum of their canonical parts, something that I’d certainly hope for Halo to stay around long enough to achieve. 
>
> <3
> Grim
Link to the post in case you want to read it contextually: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/db05ce78845f4120b062c50816008e5d/topics/anniversaries-and-canon-inconsistencies/ed6be852-0467-4e24-bb8c-62814185d28e/posts?page=1#post10
> 2535437652903765;2:
> I believe they mean that it could not canonically have existed during the Battle of Earth. However, I’m fairly certain that its appearance overrules that of the original, making it the canonically correct version of the M12.
Considering the stupidly huge amount of Hog varients that we know exist, it might even be the proper one with a modular body package. AMG do NOT just let their baby sit as we can see from Halo 5s REQs…if they can do something to it, they WILL.
As it stands now, it would seem that this is now the overruling canonical version of the warthog.
> 2533274925633740;5:
> As it stands now, it would seem that this is now the overruling canonical version of the warthog.
Actually both the original and new one exist.
The original would be called the M12 Warthog. And is the base variant. This variant is also in Halo Mythos also confirming it still to have existed at somepoint.
The Halo 5 version is called the M12B Warthog. I assume the others follow suit as the M12B if they have a similar design. But we cant be 100% clear on that.
> 2533274836874363;6:
> > 2533274925633740;5:
> > As it stands now, it would seem that this is now the overruling canonical version of the warthog.
>
> Actually both the original and new one exist.
>
> The original would be called the M12 Warthog. And is the base variant. This variant is also in Halo Mythos also confirming it still to have existed at somepoint.
>
> The Halo 5 version is called the M12B Warthog. I assume the others follow suit as the M12B if they have a similar design. But we cant be 100% clear on that.
Interesting. I always just assumed the 343 design to be the older one, just redesigned, given its appearances in events where it was previously depicted as the older design (such as in halo 2 anniversary). It would be nice if they could further depict differences between the two models, given that both exist and, at least in the classic trilogy, were used in the same general time period during the human covenant war.
> 2533274803493024;3:
> In my opinion I think it’s best to avoid worrying about items being canonical or not. The concept of the hog is what matters- 4 wheels, 2 seats, with a swiveling gun in the back. Ask 5 people to draw/animate that (that are unfamiliar with halo) and you’ll get 5 different vehicles that all could be warthogs.
>
> Imagine when (if) the halo tv show comes out, do you want to be perturbed that the warthogs look a little different or the ARs don’t have the lights in the correct places? Because that kind of stuff is guaranteed to happen.
>
> Tying specific things like vehicle design just leads to dissatisfaction.
>
> I remember reading something GrimBrother One wrote a while ago where he compared Halo to Batman in the fact that Gotham City has been depicted with different layouts many times. It doesn’t make one Gotham more canonical than the other- you have to detach from specifics and tie to the general concept in order to be fully satisfied.
>
> His exact post:
>
>
> > 2533274797632135;10:
> > > 2533274825022855;7:
> > > > 2533274824409174;6:
> > > > You can always play with old graphics. I don’t think new graphics are considered as retcons.
> > >
> > > Except they are. Grim directly said that in a canon fodder.
> >
> > Let’s make sure we’re being clear here when quoting the ol’ GBO.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Q: In games with an anniversary edition (CEA and H2A), should we take new graphics as canon over the older ones, one example being the Gravemind’s massive overhaul.BaconShelfA: In most instances, the visuals depicted in an “Anniversary” edition should be taken as the definitive representations. The Gravemind as depicted in Halo 2: Anniversary is one such instance.__- Canon Fodder 4-4-15: Clarity & Grace
> >
> > Emphasis mine. In most cases, this is true. There is an important thing to remember here though (that I’ve said countless times before), canon is often times much more an exercise in “spirit of the law” vs “letter of the law.” The idea of the Halo universe in its most grand and fullest capacities should have room for the idea of different possibilities. The fact of the matter is that there will ALWAYS be “inconsistencies” brought about by a myriad of factors, from scope, to resources, to artistic differences. And while it might be frustrating to the more… unwaveringly-minded fans, the truth is that the universe is usually much more enjoyably (or at least less stressful, lol) viewed with a bit of flexibility built in to one’s interpretation. Trust me, no one takes this stuff “more seriously” than yours truly, but one will only truly find joy and understanding in the greater narrative when they are able to transcend past certain details they might struggle to find a concrete explanation for.
> >
> > How many times has Gotham City been rearranged? How many different origin stories has Spiderman had? Eventually, these iconic fiction franchises become much more than just the sum of their canonical parts, something that I’d certainly hope for Halo to stay around long enough to achieve.
> >
> > <3
> > Grim
>
> Link to the post in case you want to read it contextually: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/db05ce78845f4120b062c50816008e5d/topics/anniversaries-and-canon-inconsistencies/ed6be852-0467-4e24-bb8c-62814185d28e/posts?page=1#post10
That’s a great analogy he used. Thanks for the clarification.
I post a problem with this every time it happens (Halo Wars 2 got an interesting response from Grim) but the H2A cutscenes they re canonised it that they were initially rolled out 2552 with their full roll out for the corps 2553 and Military wide adoption 2554