This is the talk page for Attican Traverse: Krogan Team.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

The article references the "Breeder" queen, but I think that she is some sort of semi-artificial queen created by the Reapers if you didn't save the queen back on Noveria in ME1; the queen I met was that original queen, and was not, as far as I could tell, indoctrinated (she claims to be immune to the machines). I further suspect that freeing the indoctrinated version of the queen is probably not a great idea in the long run... 05:48, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, choosing to save the queen (the Noveria one) with a loyal Grunt (i.e. one that survives) nets you the war assets Rachni Workers for 100 points, Grunt himself for 25, and Aralakh Company (reconstituted with new recruits) for 50 - additionally, you can find a transcript of Grunt addressing the new recruits on the Broker's Terminal in Liara's room. 06:06, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Mission name Edit

This mission is called "Attican Traverse: The Rachni" in my Journal. Is this normal? Does it change name at some point? I saved the rachni queen in ME1 (and received the mission from Wreav), in case that affects the mission name. --Tobiasvl 11:19, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

It probably changes. Lancer1289 16:29, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
When you are first given the quest (i.e. when Wrex or Wreav mentions it in passing) it's called "Attican Traverse: Krogan Team," but upon talking to the illustrious Urdnot leader, he mentions it's the Rachni, and it updates to "Attican Traverse: The Rachni," to reflect the new information. --Go Bruins! 17:36, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Trivia/glitch Edit

In this mission, when you meet the krogans near the wueen, there is a door holding the krogan back, you have to shoot a lock to let them through. The door on the other side of the entrance has holes in it. You can shoot the eggs (gestation pods) and release the swarmers inside. After that, shoot the lock and a cutscene begins, but swarmers aren't paused. While having the conversation, the swarmers try to kill you (fruitlessly, because you are immune to damage during cutscenes). They jump up quite a distance, a tribute to the face huggers they were inspired from. With the sound and the jumping, the whole cutscene makes for quite the show. As soon as the cutscene ends, squadmates insta-target the swarmers and dispatch them quickly. IMNdi50160 03:01, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

First the plural form of krogan is krogan, not krogans. Second, I can't see what is trivia or even what is a glitch about this. Lancer1289 03:03, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
"First" The plural form for a group of Krogans is Krogans, it is "The Krogan" only when refering to them as a people. "Second," it's trivia because it is information that some people might not know about, and it is a glitch because Bioware didn't intend for or expect it. (Idiot) Trevor Anthony Cook 04:23, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Location? Edit

At no point does this article mention where this mission takes place, how to get there, etc. It should be in the very first paragraph, and more details should follow, further down. In fact, I am not even sure where it takes place, is it the Ninmah Cluster?

-- 22:56, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Actually its in a smaller cluster in the traverse i dont know the name but it should be near ninmah. When you get there you will find a planet names uttukku thats the planet

War Assets Edit

The war assets acquired section is incorrect. I'm playing without an imported save file, so I had urdnot instead of grunt. I chose to let the queen die. When viewing the war assets acquired, the arlakh company only grants a 25 point bonus, not a 75. Any reason for this or is the wiki incorrect?(Confirmed on PS3) 19:37, June 6, 2012 (UTC)Canuk

you don't have grunt so you missed out on 50 points. save the queen you even get zero. War_Assets/Krogan#Aralakh_Company T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:08, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
The wiki was incorrect--Grunt has his own points that are added to Aralakh Company, so I changed the wording in the article. Trandra (talk) 16:18, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

After Priority:Tuchanka Edit

Missions Tuchanka: Turian Platoon and Tuchanka: Bomb must be completed before Priority:Tuchanka, otherwise they are failed. Is mission Attican Traverse: Krogan Team also failed after I complete mission Priority:Tuchanka? 15:35, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

None of those missions are automatically failed after Priority: Tuchanka, including Attican Traverse: Krogan Team, as long as you've received the mission (talked to the NPCs who provide the missions). Tuchanka: Bomb has a three-mission time limit, in that once you finish Tuchanka: Turian Platoon, doing three other missions will result in failure. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 15:56, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Grunt's Shotgun Edit

I feel I should point this out. Maybe it belongs in the trivia section. When Grunt comes through with Aralakh Company, he's carrying the M-300 Claymore; when he breaks through the wall and helps you escape, his shotgun has mysteriously changed to a M-22 Eviscerator. Does this bare mentioning in the article? --MadHatter121 (talk) 19:40, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

 Actually i always thought that grunt was always using a graal spike thrower

I think that the reason why Grunt switches from the Claymore (which mysteriously fires two shots before needing a reload instead of one) to the Eviscerator is that most likely, he either lost the Claymore or it ran out of ammo at some point, and that he was forced to bring it out, or that he was carrying one for backup and swapped to it for the occaision. -- 05:47, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Preparation Edit

After three recent playthroughs of this I have the following thoughts. Really only minor disagreements, and I've attempted a compromise version, but here's a thread just in case. We've usually referred to "area effect" rather than "splash damage" in the walkthroughs, partially because many such things are as much about the crowd control as the damage, i.e. area effect in general as opposed to damage specifically are really the way to go for the lots-of-small-enemies situation. Meanwhile I think the slow-firing-weapon mention has a reasonable place here, since frankly the swarmers aren't that big a deal otherwise. Anyway I submit that for discussion; I completely agreed with the other edits and had been tempted to pull some of it out myself but I was giving perhaps undue deference to those who'd been here before me. Cattlesquat (talk) 00:11, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

unnecessary change, unnecessary emphasis on inaccurate elements. certain weapons can produce splash/"area effect" (whatever, it's interchangeable) damage by themselves. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:39, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
Your reasons noted and understood, and I'll leave that out unless someone else chimes in. However your continuing to make still further changes in the article while it's under discussion (further in the opposite direction that I'm suggesting) doesn't seem in the spirit of how this is supposed to work. I object to the removal of all mention of Swarmers - procedurally because it's been in the article for a long time and you're suddenly removing the entire paragraph in the middle of a discussion about the wording of the very paragraph involved, and substantively because this is the normal first mission for encountering them, they're featured quite prominently, and considerations for dealing with them are reasonable for the "remember what to bring" role that preparation sections normally serve. In case anyone else stops by to weigh in, TE78's preferred wording for the paragraph in question before he deleted it was:
You should also give some thought to herds of small fast-moving enemies called Swarmers that you will encounter in this level. Splash damage is key to neutralizing enemies that rely on numbers.

and what I was proposing to change it to was:

Particularly if your combat strategy relies on a slow-firing weapon, you should also give some thought to herds of small fast-moving enemies called Swarmers that you will encounter in this level. As usual, area effect evolutions of powers will help in neutralizing enemies that rely on numbers.
Really your own wording should be restored unless someone else weighs into the discussion wanting to remove it (or accept my changes), because the section had stood for a while and I'm objecting to its removal, but out of an abundance of caution I'll merely suggest that it's proper for you or someone else to restore it rather than doing it myself. As a final point, during your earlier edit you introduced a comma in the first paragraph of Prep following Dark Channel, which grammatically should really be an "and". Cattlesquat (talk) 16:16, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
good point on ignoring the fact i actually tried to improve your wording before remembering that prep sections are supposed to be generalized pointers on what to anticipate, not blow-by-blow regurgitations of specific enemy counters that you could read further down on the walkthrough proper or on their individual articles anyway.
this is a simple cleanup op.
unless you lack good sense to leave shit hanging out to rot 7 days before cleaning it.
tl;dr, whatever rocks your boat, i suppose. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 17:24, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
So on the procedural point, given that I've spoken up to object to removal of content, the content should stay up not just 7 days but indefinitely unless more voices speak up to support removing it - tie is supposed to go to leaving established content up, though not to changing it to my preferred wording. Improving my wording sounds great and good faith, but that doesn't mean deleting a whole paragraph in the middle of a discussion about it is the proper way to go.
On the substance of the content - there's room for lots of shades of opinion on where the line between "what to anticipate" and "blow-by-blow regurgutations" lies. I like prep sections to remind me to "gotchas" that could have been avoided on the squad-selection screen, and leaving the prep section all about "anti armor" can lead to showing up all Warp-and-Sniper-Rifle like I did recently. We also tend to call out early appearances of new enemy types. So that's both why I think the content belongs in rather than out, and why I prefer my own wording (it's those with slow-firing weapon strategies that will encounter the most gotchas). Meanwhile perhaps ironically I think the whole last paragraph in the prep section about the Particle Rifle could be more like a sentence if even that - why we devote a paragraph to a single weapon choice that's at best very similar to the one already provided for free and in quantity laying on the ground, I'm not sure. I'd much rather have the short paragraph about Swarmers which appear prolifically in the mission than a larger spurious one about the Particle Rifle that's at best an esoteric variant choice.
Meanwhile on a personal note: You seem to have taken a dislike to me, which I'm not sure how it originally happened since we used to be able to do business together from time to time. Speaking up to suggest changes in your edits is something I haven't done very often, and I'm not sure why it's bad if an editor cares about what content is/isn't in a walkthrough section, and the BRD process is the right way to resolve disagreement and reach consensus. The fact that someone else things different content or wording is appropriate from me/you shouldn't be taken to mean they're trying to waste my/your time. Discussions and consensus-reaching on both content & wording are a healthy part of the process, and I'd hope you would welcome them. Consensus sometimes leans toward my point of view and sometimes against it, and when I'm outvoted I let it go. I'm not trying to spam you with a bunch of objections, your cleanup mostly seemed fine, but since you came and rewrote this right after I'd made a small change it seemed worth discussion. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:56, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

you seem to like wasting talkpage space a lot over what ultimately is a squabble over a hilariously trivial matter. alright, i'll humor you this once.

  • swarmers are minor irrelevant annoyances at best. where ravagers go, swarmers follow.
  • swarmers -are- designed to be irrelevant annoyances. doesn't matter if the mission is their lair, or their "first" appearance, ultimately you'll be spending more time watching out against bigger enemies.
  • your insistence on noting how you must "prep" for them even with a slow-firing weapon loadout isn't useful in the least it borders on the absurd.
    • they die one-shot deaths, do minor damage even en masse on insanity
    • your squadmates can take care of them before you can even aim
      • suppose they're dead, you can always backtrack while using your "slow-firing weapon" or just ditch your pride and grab a frakking firestorm. you have no business reading a walkthrough if you insist on ignoring what it advises at the expense of pushing your bias for sniper rifles (or "slow-firing weapons", clumsily-veiled such as they are)
    • player choice on loadout already noted as a concession (it doesn't need to, actually, as it's implicit, but some people apparently need hints spelled out. h-i-n-t h-i-n-t-.)
    • lots of other missions have enemies with swarming AI behavior. "bring area effect abilities to bear" reminders are almost useless in that regard: it's expected of you from the outset. coupled with the very low threat swarmers pose, this is just overemphasis of something better expressed in the walkthrough proper.
  • "normal" first mission? then clearly you forgot tuchanka. or the entire leviathan dlc. or the fact that this wiki considers all playthrough orders valid and there are/will be people just getting into ME3 because they merely waited for all DLC to come out.

consensus only works if all arguing parties know about the right way of doing things but differ on execution. i do, you don't. this isn't a farce on voting, this is a proclamation that the disputed note -is- irrelevant by all accounts and will remain expunged no matter what's said here. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:14, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how so many people think an issue is "hilariously trivial" when they are insisting on having their own way, and think an issue isn't even worth discussing because they'd rather just have it their way than bother with the "farce" of discussing or voting whether or not that is the proper procedure. If it was really a trivial issue to you, you wouldn't care if I had my measly two sentences in for terrible players like me who fail to see the obvious about swarmers and are "biased" for sniper rifles because we occasionally use them. But thank you for informing us that you just own the content and are deciding this by the well-established and time-honored wiki convention of "proclamation" rather than needing to bother with wasteful and annoying things like consensus, which I also notice seems to uniquely not apply when someone who was given a bit too much power wants to have his way. Cattlesquat (talk) 05:59, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the note on the basis that walkthroughs should generally be written with a beginner player in mind, as they are the ones most likely to be reading them. What is trivial to a veteran player isn't so much to a newbie--it might get a bit frustrating when they can't figure out why their shields are going down from walking through goo or they die from a few seemingly inconsequential enemies. Trandra (talk) 16:45, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Rachni queen bug Edit

I've hit on a bug that's been encountered before (for example here: [1]), and I believe that I've found the exact way to replicate it, or at least to narrow it down.

I killed the Rachni queen in ME1 (looked at the save file with an editor to be sure - the flag is set correctly), though unlike the player linked above, I did Grunt's loyalty and Wrex is alive and kicking, so these flags are unlikely to be linked to the issue.

During the shuttle ride in the beginning of the mission, the rachni queen is said to have been killed unless James is in the party AND he's sitting, not standing next to Shepherd. That only seems to happen if Garrus is in the party - he fills the standing up slot and other squadmates are always sitting. If Garrus is not present, James is the one who'll be standing up no matter who the other squadmate is.

The issue seems to be that if James is sitting down, he has a different line in the conversation and the one for when the Rachni queen is killed is either not in the game or badly scripted, so it doesn't happen.

So to avoid this bug, you just have to avoid having both Garrus and James in your squad, which also explains how it could have been missed during testing.

Not sure if and how this should be added to the article, so I'll leave that to someone more experienced. 22:01, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Bug?: Timing of War Assets Edit

If you save the Breeder (I'm intentionally trying for minimum war assets), when do the rachni workers and penalty to Aralakh Company show up in the in game War Terminal? I've completed this mission, chose to save the Breeder, and even went on to finish Priority: Tuchanka, but no rachni are listed and Aralakh Company is at its unmodified 25. Have I encountered a bug, or am I just not patient enough? -- 19:21, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.