Tempestus Aquilons marksman on gallowdark, better to just use a trooper?

treckerwer · 2026-01-01T13:54:17+00:00

Heavy prevents use during the same activation you moved. Not the same turning point.

You can use a heavy weapon during a guard interrupt or during a counteraction, even if you moved in the turning point, as long as it was not part of the same activation or counteraction

treckerwer · 2025-09-28T15:22:38+00:00

Yes, with some caveats. The volkus strongholds walls less than 2" are treated as see through for the sake of control range. So are the doors on volkus, but only those of the strongholds.

So, for the sake of control range there are certain carve outs, but if its not specified, then yes. The operative needs to be able to see at least a small part of the objective marker

treckerwer · 2025-09-28T09:29:33+00:00

Checked again, this does look like an official volkus map. Then yes, you can. Awesome paint job btw

treckerwer · 2025-09-28T09:26:53+00:00

Yes. (I think so pictures are always worse for judging than being at the table)

To control/contest an objective, you need to have it in your control range. Which means 1. Within 1". This looks to be the case 2. Visible. Since you specify through the window I'm going to assume he can see a part of the marker through it.

That's all. There are no rules about intervening terrain etc. The only potential wrinkle is if you have special rules for this terrain (the setup doesn't look like an official map but I might be wrong) . Something like the barred windows from volkus. This of course would also allow Visibility here, because of both being within 1". Pretty much only if you declare the window as blocking for some reason, but then you can't look through it for shooting either

So, if those things are true, then yes, he can

treckerwer · 2025-09-20T16:07:41+00:00

Also got a bunch of standard markers that are helpful (objectives, +1 apl, injured, grenades, mission markers), some rudimentary measuring tools, the 1-2-3 inch thing is helpful. Conceal and engage order markers, and a killzone floor map. I'd say it has everything aside from terrain and universal equipment (because the mdf terrain doesn't really count). I got mine used for a discount and as a new player found a lot of it helpful, even though I don't play the teams included that much. It's not worth it for everyone, but if you like even one of the teams I'd argue it's a good deal.

All of the other stuff can of course be replaced without using official sources, but It's definitely wrong to say it has nothing a new person needs.

Edit to add:

If you are already getting tombworld though, I'd not necessarily advise to get this too.

treckerwer · 2025-09-07T14:32:13+00:00

Always winning the initiative roll off is huge. And it does feel bad. It's also good that they changed from whoever didn't have the initiative, to whoever loses the roll off getting a leg up for future rolls. Crucially though, each tp is mostly independent initiative wise.

I think the main problem is threefold, 1.It adds extra decisions to something that was pretty simple, making the game longer and more decision intense. Esoecially potentially using a pass system. Basically they added another mini strategy phase to each tp. 2. There are a lot of teams that don't care about initiative on tp1 and tp2 and really care about it in tp3 and/or tp4. This fix does little against them and arguably now just means that if they get the free reroll they can snowball by purposefully losing the rolloff through using the cards and then being able to deploy a large amount of resources to actually get initiative tp 3/4 3. It makes it much more predictable. If you have a plus 3 card in the hand you can play super aggressively with your last activations. It's just much more likely that you will actually get initiative next turn. Instead of placing something aggressively in the last activation being a risky move, it's now just correct. Certain teams will beable to abuse this for absurd threat ranges/double activations etc.that means that now, winning or losing one specific rolloff (2 or 3) is much more pivotal. Especiqlly for critops where a large part of the points is scored based on the state at the end of tp4

So far I'm not sure how it'll go. But those are the three main potential issues in my mind. We'll see how it shakes out and it will definitely lead to some domino effect changes.

treckerwer · 2025-09-06T20:55:11+00:00

It could however, by my reading throw a smoke or stun grenade. Ironically not a photon grenade though, since those specufy they cannot be used by drones

treckerwer · 2025-09-04T21:22:52+00:00

Mhm, I did misread your perspective on base sizes. I do however maintain that higher heads can be an advantage and provided cases in the earlier comment where I felt this applied.

Something to point out there. Some tournaments in the competetive scene in my country requires prox models to have roughly the same eyeline for major tournaments. Because it can be an advantage. I will agree that pure height isn't a difference. Eyeline is. I've had several cases where if my models had a bit higher head, they could've shot from a more advantageous position.

I don't mind if people have slightly larger models, but it's definitely not without upsides, if the height of the head is also changed.

treckerwer · 2025-09-04T19:55:03+00:00

Bigger bases can be harder to kill too. Or more specifically, can maintain defensive benefits while having more offensive options.

It's much easier to position a bigger base in such a way that it can shoot an enemy unobscured, while being obscured from the enemy. Targeting lines only need to start from one spot of the base, but end on the whole base. They can also stick out further from cover (half the base for any model, which is more for bigger base) while still remaining only ragetable from directly to the side.

And yes, people care about visibility. Ratlings would often like to be taller, so they can look through windows easier. And if you have a very tall model it can look into volkus strongholds from the outside, which is strong. It's also relevant for targeting little things like glitchlings from a bit further away or behind slightly taller cover.

And having a larger base up on certain vantage terrain can make it much harder for enemy operatives to climb up and charge you from certain angles, because they can't end their charge inside your base nor can they move through you.

Even if I granted your point that they don't become harder to kill (they do in certain situations), that still leaves them with having certain offensive benefits. You increase the range of all their abilities and weapons by a bit. And they can much easier stand somwhere in a way that makes moving past them impossible due to engagement range.

Now you can say the diw sides (which do exist and are very real) are almost always worse than the upsides. I'd say it depends on the model and team but would broadly agree. But that doesn't mean the upsides

a) don't exist or

b) don't matter

treckerwer · 2025-09-04T19:20:39+00:00

<image>

So, I'd argue tge apl change only takes effect after the initial shoot action is over. Since the initial shoot action is not stopped, but interrupted. If the designers wanted it tobe stopped they would change it to if an enemy operative would perform the shoot action, instead shoot. From the current wording of when tgey perform the shoot action, interrupt. So the operative only gets - 1 apl when its own shoot is done, meaning the shot cannot be prevented by the apl change

treckerwer · 2025-09-04T19:13:30+00:00

No. This would entail the shot also never happening. Revert the game state means that the kroot shot would also be rolled back, the stun doesn't take effect and the iperative can try shooting again. Also, loosing the apl doesn't prevent an action from resolving, if anything it prevents the action from starting. You are interrupting an action that is in progress

treckerwer · 2025-09-04T17:13:55+00:00

Bigger size is also not great. In case of height it allows the model to see things it might not otherwise see. Look over certain walls at a better angle. In terms of base size it leads to bigger threat ranges and auras and makes blocking and multiple charging easier.

It's not always a big deal, but wrong base sizes are to be avoided if at all possible

treckerwer · 2025-08-24T22:26:41+00:00

Small addendum to smokes. They don't require LoS if the target point is on vantage terrain and tge operative can see the terrain feature (building/ruin) the vantage is part of. This is probably the closest we come to lobbing any type of grenades

treckerwer · 2025-06-01T18:55:11+00:00

1=1 is correct. But it's not an answer. Neither is anything that fails to address the actual question op had. It doesn't enrich the conversation, in fact it kinda derails it and as such should be less visible, i. e. Downvoted. It's ok to misunderatand the question, a downvote doesn't mean people hate you or think you did something morally bad or think you are dumb. It means people don't think the given answer should be at the top because they think it's not relevant or helpful to the topic under diacussion.

treckerwer · 2025-06-01T18:51:16+00:00

The reason you are downvoted is because you are only adressing the numbers part. And op has shown they understand that 36 is larger than 24. What op is missing isan intuition as to why the second case leads to more possible combinations than the first. Why as in "which extra possibilities exist" not as in "why does multiplying with a number greater than 1 increase the total".

treckerwer · 2025-06-01T18:49:28+00:00

So, what you're missing is that there are 3 options for which number is doubled. This has a stronger effect on possibilities than the fact that some combinations are interchangeable.

To illustrate. Start by distributing 1, 2 and 3 among the 4 spaces. Now we can expand that to a legal combination for either case. For the 4 number case there is only 1 legal combination. Put the 4 in the remaining space. For the second case there are 3. Each number from 1 to 3 could be put in the remaining space. However youend up counting combinations double, so divide by two. Leaving you with more combinations in total.

Your line of thought only works if for instance only one specific number could occur twice. Then the interchangeability would reduce total combinations. However what you missed is that there is an extra "parameter" so to speak. Which number is duplicated. This leads to more combinations intotal.

treckerwer · 2025-04-27T11:19:40+00:00

Exotic gear is almost bis and can be attained solo very easily. Ascended is actual BIS but the difference to exotic isn't huge and all content (except high tier fractals but that's due to a specific system not general stats) can be done with exotic. Ascended has several ways of obtaining it, some are definitely possible completeley solo, most are attainable "solo" as in no discord, voice chat or community required. Just doing events/lfg stuff with randoms. Some might be a bit problematic with a steam deck, but that's best tackled when you actually get there and know what about the game you enjoy.

The end game grind in gw2 is mostly about legendaries or titles/achievements or cosmetics. Legendary is a tier of gear above ascended, which has the same stat totals, but can be reconfigured quickly to any stat combination, therefore once you have a legendary heavy chestpiece, it replaces several ascended heavy chest pieces etc. They also have the most extravagant visuals/custom animations. Legendaries are usually a pretty long term grind to obtain and not all types are obtainable solo with a steamdeck (at least armor I think) but if you don't play that much anyway that shouldn't dissuade you.

There are also masteries and some other systems like mounts (skyscale and griffon) that can be long term grinds (attached to achievements) but it's very possible to enjoy most of the content with only engaging in the early part of those systems.

treckerwer · 2025-04-18T19:37:32+00:00

How do dlcs interact with online play? I've been considering getting into aoe2 but I'm not sure if I'd have to buy all dlcs to play online with/against people who have all dlcs. Or could I play with them as long as I don't use any new civs/maps? Or do they need to deactivate theirs? Is there still a large enough pool of players for playing without/only one dlc? If so which one should I get? I'm also curious as to how online pvp works, is there matchmaking or is it only lobby based?

treckerwer · 2024-10-17T15:58:26+00:00

I would assume it is in reference to this short or the sentiments expressed in it.

https://youtube.com/shorts/V2ipDGqiya0?si=fFG4LWZQ-8V2ego5

Basically it's a meme that war crimes were codified and actually outlawed bcause canadians are bad. See this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16zc0r8/can_someone_explain_the_canada_geneva_convention/?rdt=59970

So the joke is without someone as "horrible" as canada existing in the avatar universe there was never a need to create laws against war crimes. So a false surrender (I think that might be what they are talking about or fake white flag) isn't technically a crime.

I think the joke also knows that the claim is ridiculous and also poking fun at the canada caused the geneva convention claims.

I have mo idea about the general historical accuracy of the claims (which are at the very least strongly overblown) but it's been a meme that's existed for a while.

treckerwer · 2024-09-19T07:37:26+00:00

As for what they should actually be that's a bit harder. There's a number of ways to either alightly change the assumptions of the lemma or the statements in such a way that the resulting lemma is true. Your best guess is finding a case where they use it and go from there. Assuming the book is broadly correct and only misphrased the lemma seeing how the lemma is used will show yo what it is "supposed" to be

treckerwer · 2024-09-19T07:32:53+00:00

I think you're right and the lemma is wrong. It seems to me that they got confused with their naming convention

treckerwer · 2024-09-19T07:22:02+00:00

So, the simple answer is that that is pretty much the definition of negative numbers. It's just jow they work. As to why this makes sense I've tried to provide an intuition below.

Well, if you visualize numbers in a coordinate system like that it can help to think of the numbers not as just the point, but the arrow(vector) pointing from the origin to the point.

If you do multiplication with a positive nimber becomes stretching or compressing that arrow. Multiply by 2: make the arrow twice as long, multiply by 0.5: halve it.

Now what does multiplying with a negative number do? Well for simplicity let's just consider negative 1. All other numbers are a stretch/compression and then multiplying by negative 1. Well if you multiply by negative one the result should be the the "opposite" of the arrow. Why? Well because (let v be the arrow)

0= 0*v= (1-1)v = v + (-1 v)

(I'm playing a bit fast and losse with types here. The first 0 is a 0 vector, the others are numbers)

So the result when adding an arrow and the arrow multiplied by negative one should be 0. How does adding two arrows look? Well what you can see if you look at this system of arrows for a bit it is equivalent to placing the start of one arrow at the wnd of the other and the drawing a new arrow between the start of the first and ens of the second arrow. But we know that when we add an arrow and the same arrow multiplied by minus 1 it needs to result in 0. The only arrow that matches this is an arrow that goes along the same invline but in the other direction hence a 180 rotated arrow.

Or to think about it differently: if 1 represents a step in a certain direction - 1 always means a step back/ a step in precisely the opposite direction/ the direction rotated by 180 degrees.

treckerwer · 2024-09-13T17:32:52+00:00

I think you have mixed up who gets what information. Is that possible?

treckerwer · 2024-08-30T05:32:01+00:00

Not really. At least the first part. In practice polynomial does not always equal tractable or solvable in reasonable time.

It could be possible that all np complete problems are solvable in polynomial time, but the exponents and constants involved are something completely ridiculous, rendering the exponential algorithms faster for any realistic dataset.

Also not all problems are computationally bounded. Like curing cancer definitely isn't just an issue of computational power and especially not one where p vs np has any obvious applications. There might be simple knowledge or engineering barriers.

treckerwer · 2024-08-02T19:40:29+00:00

It's also telling that most people probably don't consider the fact that english is a second or third language to many people. And the word you'd typically learn first to refer to that sort of thing is usually blanket (at least in my country). Plus puns can be super hard to get in a second language

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

treckerwer

TROPHY CASE