Boar Style Errata?

[geekgumbo]

OK I have NO reasonable reason to suspect this, so let's just say my "Gamer Sense" is tingling here. Is there a typo in "Boar Style? It reads:
Benefit: You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack.

2d6 bleed on 2 hits? for a feat you can get at 3d lv? (1st if you are "Master of Many Styles" Monk) yowza!!! Most bleed effects I've seen top out at about 1d6. This, coupled with the last feat in the tree (Boar Shred) that allows you to do 1d6 bleed for every unarmed attack makes me question this. I can see the utility of giving multiple opponents 1d6 bleed in one round, but I was sure that bleed did not stack, meaning if I hit someone 4 times with Shred they do NOT get 4d6 bleed, so you are better off dishing out the 1st tier effect of 2d6 bleed.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Several threads on the matter, no official word that I know of.

[Imbicatus]

The general consensus is that the the 2d6 is a rend effect that does no damage to creatures immune to bleed effects, but does not do ongoing damage like other bleed effects. The d6 bleed effect for Boar Shred is a true bleed effect.

No official update though.

[blahpers]

As far as I can see, the style does 2d6 bleed damage once per round provided that you hit the target twice. Bleed damage, by definition, is ongoing; there's no reason to believe that Boar Style is any different--apart from the weirdness of Boar Shred being less effective.

Now, the writer probably did intend it to act like a rend and deal one-time damage. It wouldn't be the first time an Ultimate Combat feat or ability was screwed up by either a writer or an editor who didn't know the rules to the game they were writing.