Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 309390" data-attributes="member: 284">Right up there with yours, isn't it? And a simple reading of the rules supports it, unlike your interpretation. No, you were simply wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; The rule on when you can't use evasion/improved evasion is pretty clear, and it isn't nearly as circumstantial as you are making it out to be. Being limited to a 2.5 square tunnel (4.25 square feet) is much much more restrictive&nbsp; than being limited to half of a 5 foot square tunnel (12.5 square feet available).&nbsp; &nbsp; It's simple math.You were pretty obviously attempting to apply it inappropriately, and got all cranky when people called you on it.&nbsp; Your previous answer was inadequate.&nbsp; I suggest that&nbsp; you actually think about it before you reply next time. Not very well, as numerous people have pointed out.&nbsp;&nbsp; Face it, your interpretation is simply incorrect in this instance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 309390, member: 284"] Right up there with yours, isn't it? [b][/b] And a simple reading of the rules supports it, unlike your interpretation. [b][/b] No, you were simply wrong. The rule on when you can't use evasion/improved evasion is pretty clear, and it isn't nearly as circumstantial as you are making it out to be. Being limited to a 2.5 square tunnel (4.25 square feet) is [b]much much[/b] more restrictive than being limited to half of a 5 foot square tunnel (12.5 square feet available). It's simple math. You were pretty obviously attempting to apply it inappropriately, and got all cranky when people called you on it. [b][/b] Your previous answer was inadequate. I suggest that you actually think about it before you reply next time. [b][/B] Not very well, as numerous people have pointed out. Face it, your interpretation is simply incorrect in this instance. [/QUOTE]

Verification