Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DarkMaster" data-source="post: 1403148" data-attributes="member: 16362">As I say in another similar thread. This rules is 180o from the past rule. The flanking bonus is granted by the fact that the defender is not able to defend adequatly against two split opponent as before it was caused by the position of the opponents. Now you shift the control of the bonus from the attacker to the defender which could easily lead to the defender ignoring intentionally one of the foe. I give an example of a fighter against an ogre and a gobelin. In the old rule if they were flanking you the defender had no choice he was flanked and both opponent were getting the bonus end of story. Following the new logic could lead to the fighter saying I don't care about the gobelin I focus 100% on the ogre. He then deny them the flanking bonus. but the gobelin would probably be considered invisible for the mechanics of hiting the fighter.I know the new rule doesn't state that but the change of logic that it implies will lead a lot of people to this line of thinking. Skip makes the assumption that you will try to defend against both opponents, why should I be forced to defend against these two opponents when one threathen to kill me and the other even invisible will have a hard time going through my armor.They should think very carefully before coming out with radical changes like that. I believe they should propose the idea on board like this and see what the gamers have to say about their changes and then try to get somekind of concensus before publishing fixes. The see, no see rule for flanking is completly broken in my opinion, the alternative we just discuss is acceptable but should be carefully thinked about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DarkMaster, post: 1403148, member: 16362"] As I say in another similar thread. This rules is 180o from the past rule. The flanking bonus is granted by the fact that the defender is not able to defend adequatly against two split opponent as before it was caused by the position of the opponents. Now you shift the control of the bonus from the attacker to the defender which could easily lead to the defender ignoring intentionally one of the foe. I give an example of a fighter against an ogre and a gobelin. In the old rule if they were flanking you the defender had no choice he was flanked and both opponent were getting the bonus end of story. Following the new logic could lead to the fighter saying I don't care about the gobelin I focus 100% on the ogre. He then deny them the flanking bonus. but the gobelin would probably be considered invisible for the mechanics of hiting the fighter. I know the new rule doesn't state that but the change of logic that it implies will lead a lot of people to this line of thinking. Skip makes the assumption that you will try to defend against both opponents, why should I be forced to defend against these two opponents when one threathen to kill me and the other even invisible will have a hard time going through my armor. They should think very carefully before coming out with radical changes like that. I believe they should propose the idea on board like this and see what the gamers have to say about their changes and then try to get somekind of concensus before publishing fixes. The see, no see rule for flanking is completly broken in my opinion, the alternative we just discuss is acceptable but should be carefully thinked about. [/QUOTE]

Verification