Flanking around a corner

Dear all,

Is it possible to flank an enemy around a corner? The issue being that the target enemy around the corner will always have cover because of the corner itself.

See attached sketch (and file) below.
XXX__XX
__R__XX
XXXM_XX
XXXFWXX

Legend:
X = Wall
_ = Empty square
R = Rogue
F = Fighter
W = Warlord
M = Monster.

R and W are on the opposites sides of M, but M is also under cover because of the corner. Is the corner (a barrier, a wall, a tree etc.) preventing flanking or not? What do you think about this case? How do you deal with combat advantage?

Please, let me know. Ciao,
mao

By the Rules, R and W do indeed have flanking. Nothing in flanking nor cover denies this.

R would have a net bonus of +0 [+2 flanking, -2 cover].
W would have a net bonus of +2 [+2 flanking].
F... is just sitting there being pretty.

Btw, that is a very nice diagram you attached. I'm a little jealous... was that Photoshop? Illustrator? Gimp?!

Dalzig said:

By the Rules, R and W do indeed have flanking. Nothing in flanking nor cover denies this.

R would have a net bonus of +0 [+2 flanking, -2 cover].
W would have a net bonus of +2 [+2 flanking].
F... is just sitting there being pretty.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your quick reply. My objection in that case is about the feasibility of combat advantage (and sneak attack) conferred by flanking, since the cover [-2] seems to negate one of the conditions that define combat advantage.

Btw, that is a very nice diagram you attached. I'm a little jealous... was that Photoshop? Illustrator? Gimp?!

Click to expand...

Oh, thanks. It was a Power Point picture drawn with colored circles, lines, and squares.

Ciao,

mao

Maudragon said:

Thanks for your quick reply. My objection in that case is about the feasibility of combat advantage (and sneak attack) conferred by flanking, since the cover [-2] seems to negate one of the conditions that define combat advantage.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but the game mechanics don't really care. All flanking needs is for you to be opposite an ally and able to attack. Combat Advantage only cares if you can see the target (you can). Sneak Attack only cares that you have Combat Advantage.

So the Cover never becomes an issue until you actually attack. Since you're flanking, you have combat advantage, so you can use sneak attack, but since the target has cover against you it's a -2 on the attack. The -2 takes away the bonus from combat advantage, but does not take away combat advantage.

Are you dizzy now, as well?

Oh, thanks. It was a Power Point picture drawn with colored circles, lines, and squares.

Click to expand...

... Never could get a hang of Power point.

Dalzig said:

I see what you're saying, but the game mechanics don't really care. [...] Sneak Attack only cares that you have Combat Advantage.

Are you dizzy now, as well?

Click to expand...

Just to let you know, I got a confirmation email from Wizards Customer Service. You can be flanked even if you have Cover (+2 -2 = 0) and Combat Advantage is still applicable.

Dalzig said:

R would have a net bonus of +0 [+2 flanking, -2 cover].

Click to expand...

Of course, per the Cover rules in the PHB, M has no cover from R. (Since R can choose a corner of his square such that no lines to M's square are blocked.)

It's only if you apply the "If you want to calculate Cover more precisely" rules from DMG p43 that M gains cover from R. (Since there are two corners of R's square that have blocked lines to R's square.)

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf said:

Of course, per the Cover rules in the PHB, M has no cover from R. (Since R can choose a corner of his square such that no lines to M's square are blocked.)

It's only if you apply the "If you want to calculate Cover more precisely" rules from DMG p43 that M gains cover from R. (Since there are two corners of R's square that have blocked lines to R's square.)

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I memorized those as the actual rules as soon as I saw them. They just made a lot more sense to me.