;) 
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,140
	Threads: 259
		Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		Simple solution to simple problems: can we have 
Flanking bonus apply if the target:
- Is facing away from you (as it is now),
 
- or has their behind against a wall/dense object and is facing you,
 
- or has one of their enemies directly behind them,
 
- or is knocked down, possibly? Not entirely sure about this one.
And can we have 
Cutthroat usable under the same conditions?
	
 
 
	;) 
	
	
		
	Posts: 962
	Threads: 310
		Likes Received: 228 in 71 posts
Likes Given: 30
	Joined: Apr 2015
	
	
 
	
	
		Yes please, ass-to-invisible wall strategies have been allowed to live for too long.
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,139
	Threads: 277
		Likes Received: 244 in 138 posts
Likes Given: 93
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		yeah let soldiers have their watchful eye gimmick and own it
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 648
	Threads: 141
		Likes Received: 317 in 66 posts
Likes Given: 77
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		I'm all for Flanking applying to people who put their backs to a wall or solid object.
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,334
	Threads: 660
		Likes Received: 290 in 157 posts
Likes Given: 65
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		Having your back to a wall shouldn't automatically mean that "OH NOEZ.  I AM IMMEDIATELY ABLE TO BE CUT THROATED!!!"
That's dumb.  Having your back to a wall is exactly the opposite of being flanked.
Now, if you flanked someone (aka two people on opposite sides of one person) who has their back to the wall? Yes.  Use the general term of flank, meaning being attacked on two fronts.
Not this stupid thing.
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	;) 
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,140
	Threads: 259
		Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		Having your 
back against the wall is 
generally considered a 
bad thing, something backed up by my own experience.
Semantics aside, pushing your ass against an invisible barrier should not prevent you from being stabbed in the neck, but you're free to your opinion.
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 7,648
	Threads: 402
		Likes Received: 629 in 311 posts
Likes Given: 21
	Joined: Nov 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		I don't know, I could see some penalty for being on the edge of a battlefield (such as with the new talents), but I don't think this is the best one. It takes away a strategy element of being able to protect yourself as a mage, for example, by being able to cast Stone Dragon behind you and creating a rock that covers your rear from backstabs.
Also, you can get the flanking bonus anyway by moving to their side, so that's not really an issue where borders are concerned.
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,442
	Threads: 278
		Likes Received: 348 in 194 posts
Likes Given: 500
	Joined: Dec 2014
	
	
 
	
	
		Yeah, I don´t mind some sort of punsihment for invisible wall hugging, aka battlefield edge.
But I don´t think  things like Icepoint/Rockcreation to cover your back should be punished, it´s a valid strategy afterall. 
Battleedge wall hugging is just silly, doesn´t cost momentum to set up or anything.
So yeah. +1 for INVISIBLE wallhugging punishment.
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 4,358
	Threads: 1,027
		Likes Received: 1,563 in 611 posts
Likes Given: 538
	Joined: Feb 2015
	
	
 
	
	
		I think the map borders are a huge issue here, it mostly becomes prevalent when facing BKs and Duelists, stalemate and riposte being a huge defensive wall for these two classes, and the ability to get behind them pretty much being necessary.
That being said, I absolutely hate how the melee game has turned into literally everybody moving behind you and attacking, but honestly that's a whole 'nother topic.