⋯

Resentment was public and futile, and in June 2016 it produced two named alliances in three weeks. The Banhammer, opened by Mr_Robin_Hood on 8 June, argued that Hax "are too strong for a single guild to fight / and the only way for us to be able to beat them / is if all of the guilds unite!" and listed World of Crafters [WoC], The Wynn Guard [TwG] and MythicZodiac [MZS]{{cite:thread-130386|post #1, 8 Jun 2016}}; a Hax-side poster replied that "I will not stop till every inch of wynncraft is mine or my allies"{{cite:thread-130386|post #5, 8 Jun 2016}}. The Separatists, founded by Tapu_Fini on 26 June around the guild The Anarchy under supermariowifi, took open enrolment — "You could pledge your guild to The Separatists, and you way withdraw that allegiance whenever you feel the need"{{cite:thread-133666|post #1, 26 Jun 2016}}. "Right now there is 2 anti hax alliances," a Hax chief noted at the end of the month{{cite:thread-134638|post #13, 30 Jun 2016}}; both failed, as an UltimateXeons member had already predicted from the earlier attempts — "It didn't work, all those guilds no longer have any territory."{{cite:thread-133666|post #10, 27 Jun 2016}}

− In March 2017 a thread demanding that "Haxforums Should Be Limited On Territory Influence" charged that Hax held "100+ territories" by "taking advantage of the broken guild system"{{cite:thread-179383|post #1, 1 Mar 2017}} and "cheat the game with there control"{{cite:thread-179383|post #5, 1 Mar 2017}}; the thread's respondents, including Drew1011, uniformly rejected the idea of a cap — "Their success should not be limited just because other people are upset"{{cite:thread-179383|post #6, 1 Mar 2017}} — and one asked pointedly "are Lir, BLA, UXs somehow exempt?"{{cite:thread-179383|post #7, 1 Mar 2017}}. Drew1011's diagnosis was that Hax's position was an artefact of the era rather than of strength: "The reason that Hax is able to hold so much is because, to put it simply, nobody is trying to challenge them."{{cite:thread-179383|post #6, 1 Mar 2017}} By May 2017 a forum thread title was asking why Hax had "MORE THAN 300 TERRITORIES", and a 2020 recollection put the peak "closer to 350", "when they owned the whole map"{{cite:thread-265297|post #18, 4 Apr 2020}}.

+ In March 2017 a thread demanding that "Haxforums Should Be Limited On Territory Influence" charged that Hax held "100+ territories" by "taking advantage of the broken guild system"{{cite:thread-179383|post #1, 1 Mar 2017}} and "cheat the game with there control"{{cite:thread-179383|post #5, 1 Mar 2017}}; the thread's respondents, including Drew1011, uniformly rejected the idea of a cap — "Their success should not be limited just because other people are upset"{{cite:thread-179383|post #6, 1 Mar 2017}} — and one asked pointedly "are Lir, BLA, UXs somehow exempt?"{{cite:thread-179383|post #7, 1 Mar 2017}}. Drew1011's diagnosis was that Hax's position was an artefact of the era rather than of strength: "The reason that Hax is able to hold so much is because, to put it simply, nobody is trying to challenge them."{{cite:thread-179383|post #6, 1 Mar 2017}} By May 2017 a forum thread title was asking why Hax had "MORE THAN 300 TERRITORIES"{{cite:thread-189768|post #1, thread title, Hide007, 22 May 2017}}, and a 2020 recollection put the peak "closer to 350", "when they owned the whole map"{{cite:thread-265297|post #18, 4 Apr 2020}}.

## 2017: Emperium, War Syndicate and the Coalition

⋯