Here shall be stored the hex rules we have decided to use.
Hex flanking rules and discussion:
With respect to flanking, I’ve included a picture of the hex rules previously discussed for flanking. (See attached jpg) The rules can be defined in a very straight-forward manner:
- If a line can not be drawn through the center of the token such that all hexes occupied by tokens attempting to flank are completely on one side of the line, the target is flanked.
- If any set of tokens has the target flanked, all melee attacks on the target gain combat advantage.
- A token can not count towards flanking if they do not directly threaten the target. Ranged attacks do not generally threaten, so they do not cause flanking, and can not receive a combat advantage bonus for flanking.
The following ideas are a little less clear:
- Reach attacks that lack threatening reach do not directly threaten the target beyond 1 hex, so they do not cause flanking if more than 1 hex from the target. An exception to this might be when the token with the reach attack is using it. If that attack plus another token would grant flanking, is the target flanked for that token’s turn?
- A monster with threatening reach can theoretically surround a smaller token such that it threatens enough hexes to constitute flanking all by itself. Do we want that to count as flanking?
The rules with respect to reach attacks ought to be discussed further, as we never really decided on anything back when hex was first examined. For my part, I would answer the first question as yes (reach attacks grant temporary flanking), and the second question as no (under no circumstances can one token flank another token without additional help). Let me know if this is unclear, I can draw up some diagrams to illustrate these cases.
The attached file shows cases that constitute flanking and cases that do not constitute flanking. The top row is for medium or smaller targets, the middle row is for large targets, and the bottom row is for huge targets. In each case the flankers are represented as red medium-size hexes, but a larger token can be used, simply pick the best hex to use. The first example in each row shows a case where the attackers do not have flanking, but are generally as close to flanking as possible without actually receiving it. The second column shows examples where two attackers have flanking on their opponent, and generally represent the minimum necessary separation for flanking. The third column shows instances when three attackers have flanked their opponent, but any two of the attackers would not be sufficient to flank. This is the major deviation from classic 4th ed rules, but it also makes a great deal more sense than the rules present in the books.
The nice thing about the “line through the center of the token” rule is that it easily generalizes to other configurations of hexes, and requires little fine-tuning. Let me know what you think.