NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 313078" data-attributes="member: 2829">So then, you rule, that no matter what, if you (even a player) are attacked by an invisible creature, you automatically assume/believe that the threat lies in the direction of the attack, even though a strategic mind would recognize the very likely possiblity that the invisible threat would have moved, since it gave its position away, and you (even a player) have no choice in the matter? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />If the flanking bonus of A relies upon the perception of a threat by B, you must logically carry that train of thought forward, which would lead to B not fully knowing where exactly the threat is, because he knows that C might have, and more than likely has, moved after the attack. Thus, B is threatened on all sides, because he is not 100% aware of the exact location of C.The only way around this paradox would be for B to choose a direction that he believes he is most threatened from by C, but B might not automatically assume that the threat comes from the direction that C last attacked, especially not if B is possessed of a strategically thinking mind.Fun, isn't it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification