Peter Gibbons
First Post
No, it doesn't. To contradict the primary entry, the glossary entry would have to explicitly allow ranged flanking...which it does not. You're assuming your conclusion, here.Dr. Awkward said:The italicised text actually contradicts the primary entry, which says that in order to gain the +2 flanking bonus, you must be making a melee attack.
Remember your own argument. You acknowledged that the rules clearly limit the flanking bonus to attackers making melee attacks. Then you suggested that because you can flank without receiving that bonus, you must be able to flank with a ranged weapon. There is no definite indication, you argued, that receiving the flanking bonus is equivalent to flanking.
Then someone (me) points out to you that there is, in fact, such an indication--in the glossary. And suddenly, your argument mutates and becomes: "Ah, yes...but because the glossary doesn't reproduce all of the rules for flanking, it actually supports my position!"
Dr. Awkward said:The primary entry takes precedence, but the remainder of the glossary entry agrees with the primary entry. You will note that the definition given here of flanking is precisely, to be on the other side of a character who is threatened by another character.
Directly on the other side of him, actually. That undermines your argument (though it is technically incorrect, since you can threaten with a reach weapon).
Why in the world would we go only by the glossary entry?Dr. Awkward said:It does not indicate that you must threaten in order to flank, only that your flanking partner must threaten.
Also, if we go only by the glossary entry, not only are ranged flanks possible, but you would also gain the +2 flanking bonus when making them.
Listen, if you're going to insist on misinterpreting the rules, there's really no point having this debate. All available evidence points to ranged flanking being against the rules, for all that a strained reading of a single sentence, taken out of context, might permit the possibility.