Crash_00's page

Take a better look at what Gang Up says:
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."

No one else is "providing the flank." It flat out considers you flanking if two other people are threatening the creature. It replaces the standard position requirement with two other people threatening. This completely replaces the normal rules, as the Normal section calls out.

In the next case, when the armed combatant makes the attack, both characters are considered flanking by the rules. They aren't immediately afterward, but by the rules two characters must flank for one to get the bonus. Both are flanking when that happens.

Nothing requires you to benefit from flanking to be flanking.

You're taking a concept the rules don't support and using it to explain why the rules work. You've said it before, you'll say it again, it still doesn't work.

When you attack, whoever is helping you flank is also flanking at that time. Two characters flank.

What you are trying to say, is that when only one person gets the benefit, the other is providing the flank rather than flanking. Where do the rules state this? They don't. Instead, the rules say that they aren't flanking, until they are briefly, then they aren't flanking again (until they are again, rinse and repeat).

There is no third, providing the flank situation, there is simply flanking or not flanking at any given time.

"When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent…"
Does this not specifically call out two characters flanking a target?

If only one character flanked, it would call out two characters. It would read similar to:
"When in doubt about whether a character flanks an opponent, trace an imaginary line between the the character's center and his ally's center. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

Then, you could argue that only one character flanks at a time, and that providing the flank is a real thing. The rules don't read that way though. They specifically make it clear that both characters just flank. There is no heightened priority to the attacker over the non-attacker.

Yes, a developer invented an unwritten rule to explain why RAW is clear.

There is no such thing in RAW as "providing the flank."

"When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

The rules just call both characters in involved, the one attacking and the one not attacking, characters that flank. According to the rules, providing the flank and making an attack while flanking are both considered flanking.

This means that, yes, a character making a melee attack in this case is flanking. However, a character threatening while doing nothing is also flanking in this case.

The developer wants the second character to suddenly be "providing the flank" instead of flanking. The rules do not support that. The rules say that the character flanks just as mud has the one making the attack.

If you can flank while not making a melee attack, then the first sentence cannot be the definition of flanking.

As he said, the game doesn't care if you are making an attack or not, if you are in position and threaten, then you are flanking. This is true no matter which side of the original debate you are on.

Why do the rules tell us how to determine when two characters flank if they aren't actually both flanking?

Because it specifically calls out things like simultaneous attacks and wielding different weapons with the same hand.

Uhm…no.

It calls out using the off-hand on both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand attack. The original discussion involved Two-handed swords and armor spikes.

It has nothing to do with this discussion. In this discussion, a person is wielding a weapon in one hand while attacking with a weapon out of the other. Both only require one hand. There is no doubling up of hands, either physical or effort.

A more apt FAQ wold be the one confirming that you can wield multiple weapons and split your attacks between them without needing to two weapon fight.

There is no "providing the flank." It does not exist in the rules. It does not matter which side of the argument you are on, it just doesn't work that way.

Let's use you side, Quintain. You propose that the rules say you only threaten when making a melee attack.

Greg the fighter and Bob the fighter are on opposite sides of Olag the Orc. Greg swings his Falchion at Olag. Bob threatens with his Longsword and Heavy Shield.

Who is flanking in this scenario?

Greg and Bob are both flanking. Why? Because the second paragraph of the Flanking section tells us how to determine "when two characters flank." It doesn't tell us how to tell when another character "provides the flank."

Threaten? Check.
Position? Check.

Then flanking is a yes. That is by your position.

On the next topic, attacks do not flank. Characters flank. A rogue has to flank, not the attacks he makes. If he could "provide the flank" for another character, then he flanks by RAW. He may not get a bonus on his attack, but that in no way means he doesn't flank.

Take Assault Leader as an example. It requires an ally that is "flanking" when the rogue's attack misses. Is that "flanking" ally getting a bonus while he's just standing there? No. He is flanking though, as the rules make clear.

I think you are misinterpreting the written rules. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, therefore you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Saying "lol I'm holding a dagger so I gets flanking with my crossbow" is not the same thing as the game needing to define flank and flanking as separate conditions.

When you change the circumstances in which you are flanking (like changing which weapon you are using) then it chances the entire circumstances of flanking in the first place.

You can only threaten with those melee weapons, when you qualify as flanking, it's because of the melee weapons. Just because you can hold a ranged and melee weapon at the same time doesn't mean the rules aren't clear about this.

Nothing requires you to threaten, by the rules, to make a flanking attack. Nothing in the rules forces your other weapons to stop threatening when you make an attack. You can wield a weapon in each hand, threatening with both, by the rules.

Can you make a flanking attack with a whip?
Can you make a flanking attack with an unarmed strike (assuming no IUS)?

Can someone make an AoO with his left-hand weapon if he used his right-hand weapon as part of a standard action attack?

Where are the rules that force a weapon to quit threatening when you make an attack with another weapon?

There are ways to threaten with ranged attacks, but before we even get there, your position only works if you add rules to negate all these points. Whips and unarmed strike don't threaten, but they can get a flanking bonus even. If you were to use one of those to apply sneak attack, few would even bother to argue. So the rogue having to make an attack that threatens isn't really a point.

You can wield multiple weapons even without two-weapon fighting and still be free to threaten and choose your attacks with them, so that point is a failure also. The person flanks, not the attack or weapon. So it's never a case of my crossbow flanks because my dagger does. It's a case of I flank, so my attack flanks.

So that leaves the last point. It isn't in the rules. There is no rule that says you quit threatening with other weapons when you make an attack.

Your position is exactly what I've stated. It's adding a bunch of nonexistent rules to claim RAI is RAW. When you add an unwritten rule to claim RAW, you've broken RAW by the definition of RAW.

Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The same way one can be flanking a target and not get the flanking bonus. Do you get the flanking bonus while standing there during your flanking buddies turn? No. You only get the flanking bonus when making a melee attack. However, by the rules, you're flanking the whole time. The second paragraph makes that crystal clear. Both people involved are flanking.

Nothing in the rules says you have to get the bonus to keep flanking.

I stated in my first post that this isn't what the author's want. However, it is what ended up putting in the book. RAI and RAW aren't always the same thing, and this is a clear case.

The designers can say its being read wrong all they want. I had one say the same thing to me back in the two-handed weapons and off-hand debate. The reality is that they wrote it wrong or, at the very least, failed to edit it.

The designer told us the intent, which I agree is the intent, but then, instead of admitting the technical aspects of RAW are screwed, he tried to claim that the intent is RAW by introducing a new state called providing the flank. The rules do not support his providing the flank concept at all. They refer to this "providing the flank" scenario as being one of the two characters that flank. By the rules, the person that provides the flank flanks just as much as the person making the attack.

If a ranged weapon can provide the flank, like the designer admitted, then he must be able to flank by the RAW.

Can two people get the flanking bonus at the exact same time? No. The flanking bonus only occurs when you make a melee attack. That is crystal clear.

Can two people flank at the same time? Yes. The second paragraph makes this crystal clear and gives us rules for determining when two people flank.

Therefore, the flanking bonus cannot define what it means to flank. You can console this as flanking and flank being different definitions, or you can resolve to see the flanking bonus as part of flanking, but not the sole definition. Either way, you can flank without getting the bonus.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack ability asks if he/she flanks, not if he/she is flanking. So, either way you got over the flanking bonus issue, the rogue doesn't have to be making a melee attack, because we know two people can flank at the same time, while two people cannot be making a melee attack at the same time.

To put it simpler, we'll use master_marshmallow's assertion.
"But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack."

Completely untrue. You don't have to make an attack at all to be flanking, unless you define flanking and flank as separate conditions. In that case, you don't have to be flanking to get sneak attack, you just have to flank, and you don't have to be making an attack to flank.

Take this example:
Greg the Fighter and Jeremy the Rogue are standing on opposite sides of Oleg the Ogre. Greg has a Longsword in hand, and Jeremy has a Rapier in one hand and a Hand Crossbow in the other. Greg attacks.

Greg gets a flanking bonus. At that time, does Jeremy flank the target? By the rules, he certainly does. A quick look at the second paragraph makes it clear that he is one of the two characters that flank the target.

Now, Jeremy fires his Hand Crossbow. What has changed? He wasn't making an attack at all before, and he flanked the target. Sneak Attack only requires the flank, not the flanking bonus. Nothing says that you stop threatening or no longer flank when making a ranged attack.

The only difference is that Jeremy doesn't get the flanking bonus. However, if Greg were the one attacking, Jeremy would still flank the target.

The assertion that you have to make a melee attack to flank is absolutely false, because you don't have to attack at all to flank. I can move up to an enemy and spend every action doing something other than attack, but I still flank the entire time as long as I have an ally across from me. That flank is all that Sneak Attack calls for. It doesn't give a damn about the bonus.

Sneak Attack is not a benefit of flanking. If it were a benefit of flanking, everyone that flanked would get it. Similarly, there are other ways to get Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack Damage is a benefit of the Sneak Attack ability. It is triggered by the flank, but is not a benefit of the flank. It is certainly not a flanking bonus.

The mentioned abilities do no work seamlessly with the rules that many are proposing. They work seamlessly with additional unwritten rules that make them work, which is exact opposite of RAW. Nothing tells me to pretend someone is making a melee attack to see if they are flanking or flank. That is completely outside the rules in the CRB.

I already explained how all that works.

*shrug*

Dammit. Failed my will save. I need to take Iron Will next level.

No, you really didn't.

Your claim is that you only check flanking at the time of a melee attack.

Assault Leader is used. A rogue makes a melee attack. He misses. Assault Leader triggers. He checks for an ally that is flanking. No one is making a melee attack, so no one can be flanking by that mindset. Full Stop.

But, let's use this same logic you're applying here. When do you check for Sneak Attack? Every single attack. You check for denied dex, then you check whether you flank your target, then you check the 30 ft. and Concealment restrictions.

So, you check for the flank every time you make an attack as a rogue.

As for what would satisfy me, a designer actually being able to answer the questions about the issue in a way that doesn't contradict the CRB. Mark provided an answer, but it contradicts the CRB and uses a made up concept of "providing the flank."

If two people are flanking (as the CRB tells us), one is attack and one is doing what? He has to be providing the flank as Mark put it, but the CRB just calls that flanking. Yet on his turn, when he fires, he suddenly isn't flanking anymore for the attack, then begins flanking again. What changed? He was threatening the whole time. He was in the right position the whole time. You can claim he wasn't making a melee attack, but he wasn't making a melee attack on the other guys turn either. Nothing has changed by RAW.

If you have to make up new terms and rules to defend your position on what the rules say, then its usually not what the rules actually say. I mentioned in my first post that what the rules say is not what the designers want the rules to say. I'm surprised at this point that they haven't tidied them up.

@ bbangerter

@ Crash_00
@ Graystone

Here is the problem. You aren't being overly literal. You're adding context and definitions that don't actually exist.

Using a real world definition, when there is no in game definition, isn't just common sense as you claim, it's mandatory.

That is the sum whole of flanking (barring exceptions from feats, etc).

ALL of that applies to flanking. Yes there are different paragraphs there, but combined they define what flanking is.

The separate paragraphs aren't isolated thoughts or rules, you combine them to arrive at the rules.

The "when in doubt..." paragraph isn't independent of the "When making a melee attack..." paragraph. If it were, I could argue that the last paragraph "Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent." is wholly independent, at which point it then conflicts with the "When in doubt..." one. If position is all the matter then reach 0 not providing flank is nonsense.

So you've asked if flanking is the act of attacking or is it position? It's both. One person must be making a melee attack (the act of attacking). An ally must be on the opposite side (position) and threatening (usually meaning they have a melee weapon and are in range).

Just like AoO's for example have certain requirements to be met. A person might take a provoking action, but if there isn't someone in range to attack them, who hasn't used up their AoO's for the round, and who is threatening them at the time, then no AoO gets to get made. Even though there is a separate paragraph in AoO's that says "Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle." That paragraph doesn't say anything about having used your AoO's for the round already, but we know that part of the rules still applies as well.

Here is the issue.

The When in doubt paragraph must be separate from the previous sentence. Look at them carefully.

"When making a melee attack"
"When in doubt about whether two characters flank"

If the first part is telling the only point at which you flank (when making an attack), then how can two characters ever flank at the same time? How can any character ever flank when not actively making an attack?

We know that more than one character can flank, because the next paragraph starts by telling us how to determine when TWO characters flank. Since two characters cannot be making a melee attack at the same time, then something else has to be the key to flanking.

Now, in that second paragraph, it tells us how to tell when two characters flank. In this case, what is causing the characters to flank? If it isn't making a melee attack (which it can't be), then what is it? Is it threatening? Position?

This is why the "providing a flank" concept doesn't fly. In that second paragraph, it says two characters flank. It doesn't say a character makes an attack and the other provides a flank. Nothing says that Ranged Weapons can never flank. The only think that is ever defined using melee attacks is the bonus.

So, with the ranged character that Mark admitted would provide the flank, what makes him different than the melee character that provides the flank which the rules refer to as one of two characters that flank. There is no difference between providing a flank and flanking in the CRB.

Basically, there are three options here:
A.) Flanking only occurs when making a melee attack, paragraph two and it's reference to two character's flanking be damned.

B.) Flanking occurs when you meet the requirements of paragraph 2, paragraph 1 tells how to get a flanking bonus.

C.) To be flanking and to flank mean different things. Flanking is specifically during a melee attack and tied to the bonus, to flank is merely to provide the possibility for another character in the right position to get his flanking bonus. This is what Mark states to be "providing the flank," but the rules merely refer to as flank.

Rogues only require flank, not flanking, no matter how much the designers might want it to be different. B and C can work within RAW, they are valid interpretations. A is not a valid interpretation. It results in a contradiction with the very next part of the same rules.

I'm surprised there is still confusion about that this far into the thread.

Let me put it this way:

Bows require two hand to use.
"Two Handed Weapons" require two hands to use.
"Two handed weapons" is a game term under which a specific list of weapons apply. Rulings that refer to "Two Handed Weapons" apply to these and only these.

All "Two Handed Weapons" use two hands.
But not all weapons that use two hands are "Two Handed Weapons".

I'm pretty sure the confusion is on your end. If they say you can let go of a Two-Handed Weapon (which requires two hands to use), then letting go of a Ranged Weapon that requires two hands to use falls under the same rule. Reread the FAQ. It is addressing Physical Hands, not the effort "hands" that the weapon system uses.

Letting go of a weapon with a hand is a free action, it doesn't matter if its a bow, quaterstaff, longsword, or dagger.

Grabbing a weapon you're holding with your other hand is a free action it doesn't matter if its a bow, quarterstaff, longsword, or dagger.

If you want to go super critical, then you are also wrong. There is no such thing as Two Handed Weapons, there are Two-Handed Melee Weapons. Since the FAQ references Two-Handed Weapons, rather than the actual game term Two-Handed Melee Weapons, then it should be assumed to mean all weapons that require two hands to use, rather than the specific category of Two-Handed Melee Weapons.

Not all Two-Handed Weapons are Two-Handed Melee Weapons, but all Two-Handed Melee Weapons are Two-Handed Weapons. That said, a ranged weapon that requires two hands to use would also be a Two-Handed Weapon. Standard definitions apply when there is no game definition.

I was going to just leave it with my silly little post, but if you're appealing to me here particularly, then no, it would not. What he is doing is providing a flank. That is not the same as flanking when it comes to the ranged attack. Flanking means what others here have described.

Then you'll need to explain where the rules for providing a flank come from. They do not exist in RAW outside of the statement of when two character flank.

Sneak Attack does no require flanking, it only requires that the rogue flank. So, where is this separate providing the flank rule, that isn't part of a flank?

If he were to attack with the dagger, would it be flanking? Why? Where does the difference come from? Does the rogue flank, or do attacks flank?

If attacks flank, then how do two characters ever flank at the same time?

What others have said is that you only ever flank at the time you are making a melee attack. The rules specifically reference that two characters flank. It's how you get the bonus. Those can't both be right. It requires something that can never be true (two characters flank, when flank only exists during an attack, of which only one character can do at a time), in order for the flank to exist.

Allowing others to flank is not the same as flanking yourself. You can allow your party members to flank and not actually benefit from it in any way yourself.

See: Snap Shot. In fact, two archers with Improved Snap Shot can allow a melee Rogue with Gang Up to flank, even though neither of the archers is actually flanking. You can provide flanking without actually being flanking. They are not one and the same.

There is still a question whether Snap Shot itself actually allows the flanking for the character with Snap Shot. It's certainly reasonable, but not clear. This has been stated a number of times. But if Snap Shot does allow flanking, it's because you're attacking with the threatening weapon.

Wielding a dagger and attacking with a separate ranged weapon is an entirely different concept.

When a character flanks an opponent, there is no benefit other than flanking bonus. Seriously, it's nowhere in the text. Sneak Attack is not a flank bonus, it's a Sneak Attack Bonus.

The rogue is not benefitting from flank, he's benefitting from Sneak Attack.

That said, you absolutely cannot provide a flank without the target being flanked by you. If you provide the flank, you must flank. What are the rules for providing a flank? Where are they at? How does one provide a flank? The only rules are for when two character flank an opponent.

You cannot separate that. You flank or you don't. There is no halfway. You don't have to get the flanking bonus to flank, but you certainly must flank to provide a flank.

As for the other bit, you don't have to attack with a weapon to threaten with it. Does a two weapon fighter have to take an attack of opportunity with his main hand if that's the only one he attacked with on his turn? No. He threatens with both weapons. You have the same two hands of effort that everyone does, and can spend that effort as you wish.

If Snap Shot allows flanking, it's because the character threatens, not because he attacked with the weapon in question. You actually never have to attack to threaten. I can move my first turn, and hold actions the rest of combat, and I always threaten if I'm wielding a weapon that threatens. If I'm in the right position, I always flank under these circumstances. I can always take my AoO with any weapon that threatens.

There is no question that Snap Shot allows you to flank. It doesn't allow you to get a flanking bonus, but it does allow you to flank. Your own designer quote made this clear.

No, wielding a dagger as you use a separate ranged attack is no different. You threaten, you flank, you get no flanking bonus, you get a bonus from every ability that triggers when you flank your target.

Two people are necessary to flank ordinarily. You only check that when a melee attack is made (ordinarily). Assault Leader allows a Rogue's flank buddy to make an attack as an immediate action.

The only really interesting question to me is what would happen if the flank buddy is allowing the Rogue to flank because the buddy has Snap Shot. Technically the buddy doesn't qualify as flanking when it makes its attack, though it is a valid flank buddy for the Rogue because it threatens.

Snap Shot lets you threaten. It doesn't change anything else about flanking (which is the basis of the quote above).

This is at odds with your other statement. There is absolutely no evidence that "providing a flank" is in the rules at all. If you provide a flank, you flank.

Look further at the quote you provided. "Fortunately, this still does activate Enfilading (and there's a new teamwork feat in the ACG that would also work if you had a nice setup like this, for a net of a huge boost to the archer as well)."

How does Enfilading Fire read? "You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a [b]foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat."

He states that providing the flank activates this feat. What does it mean for a foe to be flanked? Well, that takes us right back to the paragraph that starts with, "When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent…"

One of those characters is providing a flank, the other is getting the flanking bonus, both flank the opponent. A character that provides a flank flanks the target. There is no other way for it to work.

Where is it stated that you only check for the flank in with a melee attack? You only check for the flanking bonus with a melee attack. Full Stop. The designer himself made it clear that flanks and flanking bonus are not the same thing.

As for James, you could not be more wrong.

A rogue is not required to be flanking, he is not required get a flanking bonus. A rogue gets sneak attack when "the rogue flanks her target." If flanking bonus and flank are separated, as a designer made clear, then the rogue is not restricted to melee to flank her target. She is only restricted to melee if she wants the flanking bonus.

You're ignoring one critical detail. The archer in the scenario provided has the snap shot feat, allowing him to threaten while using a bow. In order to flank you must threaten. The archer in the scenario therefore meets the requirements.

You only have to threaten to provide the bonus by RAW. Seriously, check it out, by mentions of threatening are in direct reference to the Flanking Bonus, which was separated from the flank concept by a designer.

Now, I mention in my first post that it is implied that you need to threaten, and I still agree with that, but it isn't actually stated. Keep in mind, by RAW the person attacking doesn't have to threaten to get the bonus on his attack roll either.

Does a rogue, wielding a dagger in one hand and in the correct position flank his target while firing a hand crossbow according to Mark's quote? (Assuming someone is opposite him in the correct position)

Is he threatening the target?
Is the target flanked by him?

He doesn't get the flanking bonus, as we've made clear this whole time, but Mark makes it clear that he flanks to provide the bonus to others. That would mean that he flanks when checking his sneak attack as well, would it not?

Assault Leader uses an immediate action (interrupting the normal flow of action) to allow your flank buddy to make an attack. Your flank buddy makes an attack and now would be flanking. No problem.

That's if we really want to be rigid about that. Even if flanking is a condition, though, it only applies its bonuses to melee attacks. So if you want to conceptualize flanking as something that happens outside of the context of a singular attack, it's irrelevant as a condition unless the attacker is making a melee attack or has an ability that clues you to check the flank status of the defender (like Enfilading Shot or Coordinated Shot, for instance).

"Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action."

Yeah, no.

You have to designate the flanking ally before they can take their immediate action to attack (and become flanking by that definition). It cannot work that way. You are literally looking for someone that cannot exist by that definition of flanking.

Flanking only has one bonus, the flanking bonus. Flanking does not provide other bonuses. Other abilities provide bonuses when you are flanking. That isn't the same thing. Sneak Attack does not require a flanking bonus to be applied. It only requires that the rogue flanks his target. Likewise, Sneak Attack is not a flanking bonus, it is something that gets added, due to its own rules, when the rogue flanks a target.

You cannot base the definition of flanking on other abilities.

You see, the second paragraph really does tell us all we need in that first sentence. "When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent…" That is impossible under the definition that you are only able to flank during a melee attack. You can never have another person flank while you do in that scenario.

It fully separated the concept from the bonus right there.

It's not an official answer, because it's not a FAQ or Errata post, but I'm just going to leave this here:

** spoiler omitted **

Like I said, not official. But as Claxon mentioned, the Developers have clued us in to how they feel about flanking from range. Do...

So, the claim is that providing a flank is different than flanking bonus? So, in this scenario, what does a rogue need? He gets sneak attack when he flanks. Does he need be get a flanking bonus to flank, or does he need to provide a flank to flank?

We can already see its the last of those options. How, because how do we determine if he provides a flank? We look at his position and draw a line. There is no mention in the "When in doubt," about melee. Of course, the Designer confirmed in that quote that the archer flanks without getting the bonus.

It just says, "When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent…", and if two characters flank an opponent, one character flanks an opponent as the other character flanks the opponent.

If the rogue is providing the bonus to another character, as Mark's quote supported for a ranged character, then he is one of those two characters that flank the opponent. He flanks. The opponent if flanked. This is backed up by the designer's quote that you provided.

You've sunk the case. He clearly separated the flanking bonus from being able to flank. Getting the bonus is not crucial to being able to flank, and being in melee is only crucial for the flanking bonus.

Only the flanking bonus is restricted to melee by RAW.

Here is what it comes down to. You get a flanking bonus with melee attacks. However, an opponent is flanked when people on each side of him threaten him.

So, when a rogue needs to flank, which does he need? Does he need the flanking bonus, or does he need the opponent to be flanked by him?

The sentence:
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Your claim is that this is the definition of flanking. That it only exists during the melee attack getting the bonus.

Yet, if that is the case, most of the feats and abilities that speak about flanking will never ever work. For example, take Assault Leader: "Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action."

Assault Leader is unusable if Flanking is defined in that manner. An ally can never be flanking when you miss, because the game uses turns. When you are attacking, no one else is.

So, how can you have an ally that is flanking when you miss? You can't by that definition.

In reality, that isn't a definition at all. It doesn't define what flanking is, it defines the flanking bonus and how to get it on a melee attack.

So, James, how does one ever use Assault Leader if you cannot be flanking when not making a melee attack?

Gang Up isn't a problematically worded feat. It only seems that way if you believe you should be able to get flanking with a ranged weapon. It makes perfect sense within the context of flanking being limited to melee combat.

What is the concept behind ganging up on someone in a fight? The concept is many people knocking one down and beating the hell out of him.That is where the term comes from.

Where do I expect you to know this from? Common sense? Modern Culture? Thirty seconds of internet research before arguing? Take your pick. Shooting at people twenty feet away is not ganging up on them, and breaks the spirit of the feat entirely.

As for the other part, I asked if you read the question of the Gang Up FAQ. You claim it states that you can not flank with a ranged weapon if you have the Gang Up feat. That is wrong repeatedly. First off, that is not the question. You're thinking about the answer to the question, although you are wrong about what it says as well.

The question was: "Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?"

I actually included this in the same post you responded to, and you still managed to rush over it and not grasp it. Let's put this into other terms for you.

Does your Appendix allow you to breathe? By your argument, if one answered no, then you would not be able to breathe. Suddenly you would forget how to, gasp for air, and die.

The question doesn't ask if ranged weapons can flank, so that question isn't answered. I merely asks if Gang Up allows you to flank with ranged weapons.

What's the difference? Well, our claim is that you flank when you are at an opponents edge with an ally on the opposite side, ranged attack and melee attacks make no difference. If Gang Up allowed ranged attacks to benefit, you wouldn't have to be at the opponents edge anywhere, you could be anywhere you want on the battlefield.

If that isn't completely counter to the picture of four guys kicking the hell out of one kid (the base concept behind the term Gang Up), then I don't know what is.

And of course, the answer that you bring back up doesn't say what you say it does. It says that ranged attacks do not benefit from the feat. It doesn't say they can't flank, only that this feat offers no benefit to them.

Gang Up is entirely problematic. I'm 60 feat away from the bad guy, but according to Gang Up, I'm considered flanking if two of my allies are threatening him. It doesn't matter what I'm doing, twiddling my thumbs, bashing someone else with a greataxe, pointing a bow, I'm flanking according to this feat. This is outside of just the ranged weapon question, it's into the at what range does the Gang Up flanking effect stop. It should just extend to the squares around the enemy, but it doesn't say that.

Gang Up is only non-problematic if flanking only exists at the time of an attack, but we already know that isn't true. Many abilities reference flanking outside of your turn, much less outside of a melee attack on your turn.

You've got three options for where your hands are in between turns.

1: Arrow Knocked. No threatening, you are essentially wielding the bow between turns.
2: Hand Free: You're holding the bow as you maneuver around.
3: Arrow in Hand: You've got you arrow out, but it's not knocked. Yay for improvised weapons.

Deciding what state you want to be in is no different than deciding to hold a greataxe instead of wield it. Full-Attacks have no effect on this decision either. Changing your grip on a weapon is a free action.

Full-Round actions have no issues with free actions, they only prevent the use of move actions by the rules.

Trying to claim that common sense trumps the rules is a losing battle. The rules exist as an easy simulation, not reality. They do not mimic real life, and aren't meant to. Rules that mimic real life are clunky, burdensome, and nowhere near as fast and simple as Pathfinder.

If you want to decide common sense trumps the rules in your game, you can, but that is firmly house rule territory.

]If you could already flank with ranged weapons, why would the feat need to mention them for them to be included? That's sort of an important point here. If you could already do something, why would a feat that is completely silent on the issue all of a sudden exclude a thing that wasn't excluded before? That's the nonsensical part. Hence, the understanding that this FAQ reaffirms the position that you cannot flank with a ranged attack.

It does nothing of the sort. It states that ranged attacks don't benefit from it. Can you deny that ranged attacks go against the entire flavor of the feat?

If a feat leaves an option in the same position it was before, has that option benefitted from the feat? No. Ranged attacks don't benefit from Gang Up, because gang up was meant to be a melee feat from the start.

Have you actually read the question being answered? "Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?"

If you already flank in a certain situation without a feat, has the feat let you flank in that situation? No.

All the Gang Up FAQ does is confirm that it's supposed to be a melee feat, not a feat to allow people to Flank from 30 feet away with ranged weapons.

Got beat to it, but as Cevah pointed out, the Gang Up FAQ is far narrower than you want it to be fretgod.

The question was not "Can I flank with a ranged weapon," as you propose.

The question was:
"Does this feat allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?"

The response wasn't no. It was:
"The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."

Everything was only in reference to that feat. It never states that ranged attacks can not ever be used to flank, it states that the feat does not benefit ranged attacks.

You want to push it as a wide rule across ranged attacks, while I maintain it is a narrow rule to fix a wrongly worded feat. The feat is clearly meant to let people swarm an enemy, not sharpshoot over the backs of a couple fighters.

j b 200, there is no specific vs. general rule issues here. Nothing is changing how flanking works in any of these cases. They reference that people need to be flanking, or flank, as a requirement. They don't allow any extra allowances for people to flank. So if flanking is not a condition, but literally a +2 bonus on melee attacks at the exact time of an attack, then none of them work.

The second paragraph of flanking makes it clear that opponents are flanked, meaning it is conditional, not just the acquisition of the bonus at a specific time.

Ssyvan, Assault Leader does just that. It references an ally that is flanking (at the time you miss an attack, so they can't be making one at that time), and it also references the enemy as flanked (meaning it is conditional). Both of which work with flanking being a condition, but neither works with flanking being just the bonus and nothing more.

I can easily reverse your quote just by bolding different parts.

You check for flanking only when making a melee attack. If you aren't making a melee attack, there's no doubt you are not flanking, so you don't need to apply the second paragraph.

It doesn't mention that you need to threaten because it's implicit that you threaten: otherwise you couldn't be making a melee attack!

Both parts include falsehoods.

I'll tackle the second part first. Not all melee attacks threaten. For example, Whips are melee weapons that make melee attacks, but they do not not threaten. Another example is the unarmed strike for most characters. It's, again, a melee weapon that you make a melee attack with, yet it doesn't threaten (assuming you have no Improved Unarmed Strike feat).

While you can certainly make the claim that this was oversight, that doesn't actually change RAW.

As for the first part, you're still mistaken. Take Assault Leader for example:
"Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action."

We can also look at Enfilading Fire:
"You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat."

If flanking only exists during a single melee attack, then it is impossible for two characters to be flanking at the same time, and the system breaks. It is also impossible for a character to be flanked by anyone while you're making a ranged attack.

No, the system clearly means for flanking to exist at all times. It's conditional, and set out that way. The second paragraph does not depend upon the first paragraph in any way. It is you that assumes the first paragraph is the only way flanking can come up. Both the above rules (Assault Leader and Enfilading Fire) bring up whether a character is flanking outside of his turn, much less outside of a melee attack.

You see, you make the assumption that you only ever need to check if you are flanking. Clearly, you often need to check whether someone else is flanking.

Let's look at a few things. First, let's look at Flanking itself.

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

Let's toss a few takeaways from the actual text out real quick.

A.) Nothing says that the attacking character has to threaten to get the flanking bonus. Only the character on the opposite side has to threaten the enemy by RAW, for the attacker to get a flanking bonus.

B.) Flanked is a condition. Last part of the section, "the opponent is flanked."

C.) Flank exists outside of an active melee attack. The second paragraph is entirely about this concept. An opponent is flanked by characters that meet the imaginary line requirement. No restriction of, "while actively attacking" is given. Characters that flank are flanking. For example, looking at Assault Leader clears this up.

D.) Only the flanking bonus ever actually states a requirement for melee attacks. The requirements for flanking make no mention of melee only.

What does this mean?

1.) It is possible be flanking an opponent without the opponent being flanked outside of the attack. IE Using a non-threatening weapon to attack while the opponent is threatened on the opposite side. In such a case, the opponent would only be flanked for that attack.

2.) An opponent is either flanked by you, or it isn't, at any given time, since it is defined as conditional. The requirements for the condition are laid out, albeit very vaguely.

3.) If you threaten an enemy, you flank it, whether you are attacking ranged or melee. You are just never flanking it for a bonus with ranged weapons. Enfilading fire works perfectly with this. You can be a person that flanks the enemy, assuming you threaten it, or you can be firing at an enemy flanked by two allies. This is the RAW.

4.) This is absolutely not what the authors meant. It is about as clear as mud wrapped in tinfoil and shoved in a steel safe.

5.) The Gang Up FAQ makes it clear that the Devs consider being eligible for the flanking bonus to be a requirement of flanking with any given attack. Whether this is meant to be the case, or it was a gut reaction to the use of a swarm feat for sniping, is not known.

I have to agree, the overall impression i got from it was along the lines of, "Please fight my petty vendetta for me."

Did someone say Christmas Special!

Games are created for entertainment. Your motivation while playing may be to win/succeed. Your motivation to log in and kill in the first place is always enjoyment or commitment. The commitment angle really only applies to MMOs, but even there most people are going for the enjoyment angle, not commitment (they have to buy the game for some reason before they ever become committed to a group in the game).

While most people may be offended by the situation in real life, I don't think many are offended by a fake representation of it. We've seen it often across various mediums, and it actually tends to go over well (Gladiator, Argent Tournament in WoW, etc.)

I don't want to be part of a game where it is possible to force NPCs to try to kill each other for entertainment. I find it worrisome that there are people who can't see that distinction.

I believe the point people are making is that it should be a much bigger issue that we are killing things for entertainment. On a meta-level we log onto the game and kill each other or various NPCs for sheer entertainment value. That's the entire purpose of the game.

Most big games are like this. Thousands of people log onto Call of Duty every day and shoot each other in the face for entertainment. People log into WoW and kill each other in Battlegrounds and slaughter boars by the thousands for entertainment.

That player motivation should be more worrisome than the character motivation if you're going to take that standpoint.

Only certain evil actions invoke the Heinous flag. Slavery, Raising Dead, etc. Being an evil dick isn't enough. You have to do the kind of evil things that even many evil people find heinous.

That's true, Crash, but not really relevant, since the whole idea here is to make all PvP in Starfall Hexes sanctioned.

It is relevant. An excuse for this used recently was that starfall hexes are high level hexes and that Reputation is only meant to protect new players from unwanted PvP.

A FFA hex may be considered sanctioned, but the premise for getting it to FFA in that argument (avoiding new player gankage is the reason for the Rep System) was flawed by being blatantly false.

New players are undoubtedly a reason the rep system was created, but they are not the only reason. They want meaningful warfare, not random gankings. A ganking can be meaningful, but that doesn't make it warfare. Sanctioning is what makes it warfare.

Reputation is not just to protect new players. It's to funnel PvP into the role that GW wants it to play in the game. That role is sanctioned pvp. Reputations is used to penalize unsanctioned PvP.

We can take a look at the alpha instructions and see this:
"Reputation is a measure of how much unsanctioned PvP you have taken part in. Unsanctioned PvP is any PvP combat outside of wars, feuds, defending yourself from attack, or combat in area that have been declared free for all PvP zones."

If they adjust the system from alpha levels, would that not make harvesters less safe generally?

We can measure the reputation penalties, but we can not account for adjustment. That is a fair and true statement.

If reputation is adjusted to make it less penalizing, would that not make everyone more susceptible to attack?

Do we know if GW plans to adjust reputation penalties relative to what tier you are in?

Has anyone attempted to attack a player outside of city hexes and measure the reputation loss? Is there any significant difference?

We don't know if they need to adjust it yet or not. Here is what the Alpha instructions say:

"You lose more Reputation the higher your target’s Reputation and the lower power level they are, while you lose more Reputation the higher power level you are."

There are three factors in play here. Target's Reputation (X), Target's Power (Y), and Attacker's Power (Z).

We know very little about the scale of these variables right now. Alpha is taking place right now at fairly low levels last I watched, meanwhile we're discussing skills that require 14 ranks in Mining minimum (the end of Tier 2). We haven't really gotten to see how widely the affects of these variables will change things. If two level 14's go at it, will it be different than two level 6's?
We also don't know the scale that higher rep affects things yet. Without a formula we can't really say yay or nay on the numbers we'll see at that rate. It's possible that a high rep character could cause 2500 rep loss or it could be closer to 800. We just don't know as it's based on a formula that we just don't know.

Before we can know how true his proposition is, we have to see the system in action. We haven't seen the system in action. We've only seen low-level PvP and consequences in Alpha, and they'e all highly subject to change at the moment.

I sincerely doubt harvesters in high level zones will ever feel safe by the time the system is finished.

I don't think he's combining cost and risk together. He's pointing out that purchasing something is a risk.

Every time you spend rep on a undeclared kill, you're taking a risk that its worth it. That there is a real benefit there. That the kill is worth whatever downsides might be associated with it (contracts and such against you).

You could try to claim the same holds true toward Feuded targets as well. It doesn't hold up as well though. A $5 cost is more risky than a $0 cost. You'll never need those $0 for anything else, they don't exist, but that $5 might mean the difference between the deal of you life later.

Feud are instead a risk on the company level, not the individual level. A company is weighing that cost analysis for all its members.

Most traditional back quivers I've seen hold 18-24, so the standard 20 seems appropriate. I've seen plenty that hold more though. I used to have a two stage three pocket that held 40 (24 in main pouch, 8 in each side pocket).

The problem with the 300 shots analogy is that it has to be balanced against damage of the arrows. Hunting, I've never had to hit with more than one arrow to take down a target (I've missed and used more than one arrow before of course, but that's not what I'm talking about). In this game, I expect arrows to be far less deadly than in real life (and therefore require more to take targets down).

I would like to see arrows be retrievable.

The two issues I see being brought up are both valid issues (and both of them are reasons why I have a gut feeling against it).

1. Border Camping
--This isn't border jumping. It's a large force of the feuding company hanging out along the borders of the hex. They place themselves outside the attack distance from within the hex, but within sight distance of the hex so they can keep an eye on it. They're essentially unattackable until they want to be. This is an issue.

Two possible proposals:
A. Urman suggested requiring members to be inside the hex to maintain the feud and reducing the feud's timer as the number of members drops. I would extend this to be similar to war of the towers, where companies feuding the company controlling the hex can also work down the timer by amassing in the hex and slaughtering the controlling company. Don't feud a hex if you aren't looking for a fight.

B. Make the feuding company FFA in all surrounding hexes, but they can only target people consequence free in the target hex. The Feuding company takes a large risk for their feud. They get their one FFA hex for themselves, but they can be targeted in any of those seven hexes freely.

2. Too many feuded hexes. There will be order of magnitudes between the number of companies and the number of hexes in the game. That means the situation could easily become this.

Larry wants to travel to nearby settlement Gottagettheresville. There are four hexes between his settlement and Gottagettheresville. However those settlements include Fred the Feuder, Greg the Ganker, Sam the Sacker, and Billy the Bagger. He could try to take the long route to get there that makes the distance 6 hexes, but that would include going through Ail the Angry, Craig the Cranky, Dick the Deadly, Elric the Evil, Hal the Homicidal, and Mal the Malicious hexes.

Basically every non-claimed hex will be feuded by someone because the company to hex ratio is so high. This basically turns every hex in the game that isn't claimed into a FFA zone. At that point the game has failed to perform its goal. Instead of promoting meaningful PvP over the usual gankfest, its just shuffled each set of gankers into a single hex. Yay!

The two things that could slightly alleviate this issue are:
A. Make the cost so high and the timer so short that it's just can't be held up all the time by any companies and small companies pretty much can't do it.

B. Restrict the hexes to chartered companies and require the hex to be adjacent to a settlement controlled hex.

All that said, it seems the intent behind this is for use on hexes that can't be claimed to begin with (monster, badlands, monster homes, and star fall). I would prefer to see them not be done this way at all. It seems against the entire nature of not being able to claim them to begin with.

My gut is against it.

That said, a few things that can be looked at for balance on a sliding scale would be:

1: Distance of hex from companies settlement.*
--If the cost increases drastically the further you get from your settlement, this will promote the feature to be used for controlling hexes near the settlement that are unclaimed rather than harassing far away settlements.

2: Type of Hex.
--I would prefer to see the type of hex affect the cost as well. General hexes being lowest on the totem pole and progressing through monster, badlands, monster homes, and finally starmetal hexes. I would prefer to see starmetal hexes be cripplingly expensive to do this with.

3: Other "Feuds".
--Each feud on a hex increases the cost to upkeep the feuds for everyone. So if six companies are all feuding one hex, their upkeep costs are all being increased. This promotes using this for hexes strategic to your settlement (like passes or those single hexes of a type in an area) rather than farming hexes or faraway hexes.

*Treat unchartered companies as the max distance used.

Wow, so this has been a thread.

To the point: I think the argument for reputation free pvp zones for skymetal hexes has merit. It is the highest reward, it would make sense for it to have the highest risk as well.

It already does without tweaking a single thing.

More dangerous PvE? Check.

More dangerous PvP? Check. People looking to PvP here have to be able to take on the PvE creatures after all.

Most incentive for PvP? Check. People in these hexes will be hauling the most expensive loot in the game.

This implication that these hexes won't have any PvP occurring in them, or enough, is just an issue with the reputation system, not an issue with the starmetal hexes.

And no, I don't think the rep system is so strong that it will prevent all undeclared PvP as, Andius proposes. If my city has rep min of 5k and I'm sitting happy at 7.5k, then it really is a decision when it comes to weeding out the unaffiliated harvesters that have moved in. I have 2.5k rep to spend in doing it. Whether that's one or several does not matter, it's a meaningful decision in both cases.

Starfall hexes are the hexes in grey.

You can't really say that, Andius. They have a lot more they can do with PvE to separate low level players from high level players that doesn't affect the PvP power gap.

For example, the Tier 3 PvE enemies could be incredibly resistant to all Tier 1 and 2 keywords. That would make Tier 3 keywords the only reliable way to affect them.

Pretty much how I see it. The fact that people think PvP is being punished in this game tells me they don't understand the game very well. PvP is not being punished. Undeclared PvP is being punished.

I see there being plenty of PvP, even undeclared, in these hexes that we don't need to worry about FFA PvP. If we need to worry about FFA PvP, then they made the resource to common or not valuable enough.

Yes, Andius and his buddies can start farming the hex down south on their unaffiliated alts. TEO/TSV can hop on unaffiliated alts and hit up the crater next to Aragorn just as easy. I'm not seeing an issue with this.

I don't see it that way at all. I see it as them protecting the CE alignment. CE characters are those rat-bastards. They are the bad guys. Not the subtle bad guys, the blatant bad guys. If you want to play the blatant bad guy, you have to act accordingly, and take the penalties that come with it.

Recipes, training, taxes, bulk supplies, repairs. There are plenty of ways the economy can and will work with the system they have in place. Gear doesn't last forever.

It's not that there isn't anything else to spend money on. It's more about what there is to spend money on as a low rep character. Training gets capped fast. Settlements that take you are likely extremely simple with less need of bulk supplies due to rep restrictions on buildings and tiers. Reparis will be cheap for Tier 1 gear and likewise, tier 1 recipes are likely to be cheap.

@Kobold Cleaver
I look at what Ryan said about Chaotic Evil Characters.
"It is doubtful to me if it will be possible to play a Chaotic Evil character Chaotically and Evilly without getting a crippled character as a result."

I was thinking the same way before I saw that he was thinking that way though. Chaotic Evil characters action should fall in line with those actions that lower your rep. If they aren't, you're not actually playing CE, you just have it on the sheet.

Murderhobos are going to be limited to Tier 1 training and support fairly quickly. Since gear's primary boost at Tier 2 and 3 are increased keywords (that you need Tier 2 and 3 training to make use of), gear higher than Tier 1 simply isn't that big of a deal to someone that only has Tier 1 training.

Without being able to get higher training or benefit from better gear, I just don't see what use they have for the money.

That's the issue. You can try to hire them, sure, but why would they take the job when they don't need the money? They could do the same thing and get the same effective benefit from murderhoboing in much safer areas.

So, then what happens? You have to go kill people yourself. That shifts you toward murderhoboville status, which limits your training, which limits your benefit from higher tier gear. Sure you slaughter everyone and get your gear, but then the gear isn't worth as much because you can't train (or get support) to keep your skill up.

The rep system and tier systems both fully support not becoming a murderhobo. What you need the resources for require you to not be a murderhobo to benefit from them.

If everyone is CE, then the resource becomes useless. Tier 3 gear needs tier 3 training to be very effective. Tier 3 training requires a high rep. CE is pretty much the result of low rep and evil.

I don't think CE is going to be a very bad threat. CE isn't just unattractive, it sucks horribly. You get stuck with the lowest training and, what are you going to be spending you gains on?

I don't think this gives anymore incentive than any other location in the game does. I mean ganking Tier 3 wearing characters is going to be very lucrative as well, but that can happen anywhere.

Crash_00 wrote:

That is incredibly unlikely. Whoever is most successful in the hex is going to get those resources, or at least 75% of those resources. There is no other purpose for the PvP to occur.

No one is going to go to a high resource hex and PvP "to keep resources rare." They're going to go PvP in a high resource hex to prevent others from getting the resources. Only an idiot would then leave the resources there when they leave.

What would actually happen, assuming logically minded people are involved, would be a group moving in an denying access to the faucet "to other people" and filling their own canteens.

It doesn't make the resource rarer than it was. It makes the resource rarer to other people.

This will all happen without making a zone FFA. It will just happen less frequently. People will have to actually make meaningful decisions over which groups they attack to get control of the faucet rather than just "gank everyone coming in."

Meaningful decisions are supposed to be a part of the game. Randomly gank everyone situations are not supposed to part of the game.

How does that work, you know filling your canteen while being stabbed repeated in the back with a bastard sword? Oh, that's right. You die, unless you stop filling your canteen long enough to defend yourself. But then you aren't harvesting.

I'm not saying any resources are going to get left. That's absurd. I am saying that time spent defending yourself leads to less time harvesting. 75% of a rare resource is less than 100% thus making it resource rarer.

Well if you bothered to think for a moment, you'd see that the analogy is the people fill their canteen after gutting everyone else (denying access).

You seem to be of the assumption that Tier 3 resources spawn fast enough that time spent defending yourself is a major factor. I haven't seen anything to support that. If the starmetal is on a respawn timer of say 48 hours, that five minutes defending yourself is not making things rarer.

As for the 75% is less. I already addressed that. If you're worried that it needs to be rarer, petition the devs to make it rarer. Don't try to throw away the system that makes PvP meaningful.

That is incredibly unlikely. Whoever is most successful in the hex is going to get those resources, or at least 75% of those resources. There is no other purpose for the PvP to occur.

No one is going to go to a high resource hex and PvP "to keep resources rare." They're going to go PvP in a high resource hex to prevent others from getting the resources. Only an idiot would then leave the resources there when they leave.

What would actually happen, assuming logically minded people are involved, would be a group moving in an denying access to the faucet "to other people" and filling their own canteens.

It doesn't make the resource rarer than it was. It makes the resource rarer to other people.

This will all happen without making a zone FFA. It will just happen less frequently. People will have to actually make meaningful decisions over which groups they attack to get control of the faucet rather than just "gank everyone coming in."

Meaningful decisions are supposed to be a part of the game. Randomly gank everyone situations are not supposed to part of the game.

The amount of skymetal in the marketplace will be determined solely by how much faucet of it there is.

How can anything else change how rare it is?

That's the way I see it. It is rare based on it's rate of spawn. 1 Tier 3 item spawns per 250 Tier 1 items. FFA PvP has nothing to do with that except by destroying 25% of it. If that's the issue, why not just propose that change the spawn rate by 25%?

This is the logic behind "zero tolerance" policies and other nonsensical behaviors where people substitute strict enforcement of one-size-fits-all rules for actual intelligence and good judgement. It's certainly easier to implement all-or-nothing rules, but easier is not synonymous with better. Carefully managed exceptions make almost any rule better when looking at real world outcomes.

There are 9 grey hexes on the map. I specifically chose them because they're rare and avoidable, and could not become the exception that devoured the rule. The only way 9 FFA hexes could transform the norm would be if a major fraction of the population was clustering into those hexes, presumably because they're having fun there.

Yeah, no. The logic behind zero tolerance policies is not allowing the action at all.

That action, in this circumstance, would be non-consensual, undeclared PvP. Is there a zero tolerance on this? NO! There is a carefully crafted set of rules that regulate this behavior (the reputation system).

What you're proposing would be like saying "we have a carefully crafted set of rules for regulating people taking tests in our school, but if you're in the exam centers, these rules don't apply. In fact, in the exam centers we have no rules."

That's just flat out not productive or logical.

@Hobs
That's the whole point of the rep system. Every time it makes you weigh rep loss against profit, it's meaningful.

Implying that stupid people will reliably go into FFA grey hexes and attempt to harvest without defenses or backup, no matter how often they are ganked doing it.

I don't think that's how this dynamic would play out.

No, I'm implying that "I" would include me and my group and that we would be smart enough to attack while they are fighting off the PvE threats. You know those pesky things that are supposed to be in Starmetal hexes in force.

Bringing in more people is really just a stall, because both sides can do it. The advantage goes to the people that weren't dumb enough to waste XP training gathering skills in this system, because they have more combat abilities.

It's harder for gatherers to get starmetal in this system, but it's far easier for PvPers (they don't have to look at their rep as a limited resource anymore). You can say it won't happen like that, but I'm pretty sure the history of PvP games is stacked heavily against you.