Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9405132" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>What discussion is that, though? The tweet you posted is a straight up rules-clarification question. Crawford's response says nothing about intent. He just gets the rules (according to me) wrong. I also listened to the discussion you posted about having a clear path to the target. The part at the end where Crawford says it's "the game working as intended" is in reference to stacking exceptions, not a closed window counting as total cover which he presents as a clarification of the actual rule and which, again, he gets wrong and even misremembers the rule for points of origin coming into being on the near side of an obstruction, forgetting the requirement that it has been placed at a point you can't see. He's basically trying to rewrite the rules in that tweet and that interview, but makes no reference to the intent of the actual rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>