@hotshot That's' a bit liberal of an interpretation of what a Gravemind is, it's simply a node concentration for telepathy with a far greater degree of intelligence that is known to exist, possibly only rivaled by the Precursors, the Geth, and Reapers. They are the equivalent of a way-way street of the Geth's networking ability, whilst possessing supreme intellect from the accumulation of mass. Killing one would be counter to what indoctrination is supposed to achieve-an ally. I highly doubt that the Reapers would simply kill it, on the contrary, they would sacrifice quite a bit to capture one to indoctrinate as the benefits it would grant would be invaluable. [quote]Saying reapers or geth are tier 1 or tier 0 is retarded. They never accomplished something close to Forerunner level. They are below the Covenant.[/quote] I don't think I need to chastise you for being rude, but i do suggest you reread what I said. I said by Forerunner tiring the Reapers and Geth with their Reaper upgrades would be categorized as Tier0 AI. Forerunner technology tiring states that an AI who achieves full sentience are categorized as tier 1, whilst the requirements for tier 0 is to progress the "evolution" of life, something the Reapers have been doing since Mass Effect 2. Intergalactic travel, another sign of such advancement would also be theoretically possible given Reaper Mass Relay technology. I made no mention of technologies beyond this being on par with the Precursors or Forerunner, stating that their weapons and shielding are far below Forerunner levels, though your belief that they are in anyway inferior to the convent is just not true as I have shown in prior posts. In a nutshell, Mass Effect pre-Thanix Dreadnoughts have a significantly higher damage output than UNSC ships during an engagement, whilst also having significant shield strength- an attribute not shared by UNSC ships. The ME codex states it requires three Turian Dreadnoughts to have a 50% chance of winning against a single Reaper capital ship. On average, it takes the same number of UNSC vessels of equal class to bring down a single Covenant ship. This means that at worst the Reapers have the equivalent combat ability of the Covenant on a per per ship same-class basis. [quote]We don't know how Precursors were defeated by Forerunners; it's all baseless speculation on your part. For all we know the Forerunners used Precursor weapons against them. [/quote] I really think you need to cool off, you're aggressively rude attitude towards others is uncalled for. Insults like "Retarded" and "Baseless speculation" should have no place in a conversation between people, especially as I've made no inflammatory comment against you. I've stated nothing that isn't part of the Lore of Halo when i spoke of the Precursor war. The Precursors had been driven from the galaxy by the Forerunners, forerunners classified themselves as tier1 whilst the Precursors as tier0. This means a technologically inferior force somehow defeated a technologically superior force. There is no other way to interpret the situation apart from the details of the war. As for the substance's durability, what I said was also accurate, both from the lore's point of view and the application of science. For example, if we take persoz pendulum and find that an objects hardness is rated at 1,000 and crash an object that is rated at 500 against it with enough force to create 10J, the object in motion will likely break whilst the stationary object will not. However, if we apply metallurgy to increase that resilience to 1,000 as well and apply 100J, the stationary object will break, whilst the object in motion will likely only suffer minor stress in comparison. This process is applicable to anything including the allegedly indestructible Precursor buildings. Instead i present an alternative view, rather than indestructible in the traditional damage resilient point of view, it is possible they meant indestructible as nature itself is, using the law of conservation of energy as a premise. The shape and form of the material may change, but the mater of its construction cannot be destroyed. For example, when you eat an apple, your body converts the once physically round apple into calories. During its journey some of the calories is converted into fat, whilst other travel through the body, collecting unwanted material. At the end of the apple's saga in the person who ate it, it becomes mere atoms and carbons in the air, while others are converted into heat energy that had been exerted from the body as it is burned to fuel it and is now awaiting the next form it will eventually take. In the same sense, the apple was never destroyed, only warped to another form. Given what we know about the Precursors, that they are "one with the universe where nothing is ever destroyed", inspiration taken from Hinduism, it is not entirely unlikely that such a deeper way of thinking about placement would be so overthought, although still unlikely given the context of the are of a Forerunner's descriptions/narrative of the objects in half a page. Such a theory of universal equilibrium would then be arguably placing words into the Precursor's mouth, but would still be plausible I think. This is one reason why the universe will eventually die, although the amount of energy and mater have not changed since its creation, nor will it ever, it will eventually become so spread out that it can no longer reform into something else. The laws of energy conservation states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can change forms. So the idea of an indestructible object in the conventional sense is just not possible as it would violate numerous lore establishments and established laws of science. An indestructible object worn as armor would render that person undefeatable in combat, same for any war asset. So either the term "indestructible" is not to be taken conventionally, or as would be more likely given the context, the Forerunners had just been unable to destroy them, just as a caveman in animal hide would believe composite armor indestructible. Perhaps Halo 4 and the third book in the Forerunner trilogy will shed more light on them, as of now we only have scraps to guess upon. Perhaps the Forerunner developed some sort of anti-Precursor super weapon? It is even possible that the Precursors had not even been defeated in the conventional sense, rather they may have chosen to abandon the Milky Way after witnessing their 'prized' Human 'creation' distinguish themselves against the Flood by driving them from the Galaxy (or so they thought) at the cost of getting exploited and obliterated by the Forerunner, a species the Precursors must have considered far less worthy of a successor. From the Precursor's point of view, Humanity placed the fate of all life in the Milky-way above their own survival, while the Forerunner thought of only their own gain. Enraged by the Precursor rejection, the Forerunner attacks the Precursors who retaliate by judging their efforts in the Milky Way as a failure, and unleash the Flood upon the Forerunners before leaving with the assumption that the Flood would devour the Galaxy. Fast-forward to the end of the Human-Covenant war, and the Precursors are shocked to learn Humanity survived after all, so they return for Halo 4, possibly to redouble Human 'evolution' to allow them to eventually reclaim their place and claim the mantle. "Driven from the Galaxy" may just be simple Forerunner propaganda, or it may be literal, given the limited information we have on what happened any guess is as good as the next. Such a possibility does not seem so liberal of a guess to me, unless the Precursors had been quite limited in number. A species that had existed for as long as they did does not become so complacent that they ignore the possibility of warfare with others, especially younger races who think more with emotion and judge the unknown with hostility. I think it's also highly unlikely that Precursorian presence in the Milky-Way had been their only presence in the universe. It would be a strong possibility that they had 'teams' in as many Galaxies as they could, each seeding life and developing them. Some even speculate that the Flood and Precursor are one-in-the-same, with the Precursor 'evolving' into the Flood, although I have issues with this idea.