| |
Yea big, yea high, four walls, minifig scale, not 20th century.
What was too complicated about the rules?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Erik Olson wrote:
> Yea big, yea high, four walls, minifig scale, not 20th century.
> What was too complicated about the rules?
The write-up was extensive (yet interesting to read) so that may be a part of
the problem. I agree that the rules, thoa, are not overly restrictive.
Maybe a summary post of the rules, would be in order?
Here is my attempt at a short summary:
1. castle must fit in a 1536 stud area
(note: this is the area of a 32 x 48 baseplate)
2. surrounding lands must fit in a 2304 stud area
(note: this is the area of a 48x48 baseplate)
3. castle must not be taller than it is long
4. a castle is defined as "any self-enclosed walled defensive
fortification."
5. you're not limited to era or geography, except nothing older than 19th
century
6. minifig scale, meaning minifigs are appropriate with the model
That is all I could get for rules. The rest was all suggestions and such to
help build the excitement. :) But I am not an organizer, so maybe they should
comment.
- Alfred
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Erik Olson wrote:
> > Yea big, yea high, four walls, minifig scale, not 20th century.
> > What was too complicated about the rules?
>
> The write-up was extensive (yet interesting to read) so that may be a part of
> the problem. I agree that the rules, thoa, are not overly restrictive.
I agree.
> Maybe a summary post of the rules, would be in order?
>
> Here is my attempt at a short summary:
Great summary! Thanks!
>
> 1. castle must fit in a 1536 stud area
> (note: this is the area of a 32 x 48 baseplate)
> 2. surrounding lands must fit in a 2304 stud area
> (note: this is the area of a 48x48 baseplate)
> 3. castle must not be taller than it is long
> 4. a castle is defined as "any self-enclosed walled defensive
> fortification."
> 5. you're not limited to era or geography, except nothing older than 19th
> century
EXCEPT I think you mean nothing NEWER than 19th century here.
> 6. minifig scale, meaning minifigs are appropriate with the model
>
> That is all I could get for rules. The rest was all suggestions and such to
> help build the excitement. :) But I am not an organizer, so maybe they should
> comment.
Who, us organizers, guilty of elaborating as a way of drumming up excitement?
Never. :-)
Larry Pieniazek
Display Coordinator, Brickfest 2004
August 13-15, 2004
See you in Arlington!
http://dc.brickfest.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > In lugnet.castle, Erik Olson wrote:
> > > Yea big, yea high, four walls, minifig scale, not 20th century.
> > > What was too complicated about the rules?
> >
> > The write-up was extensive (yet interesting to read) so that may be a part of
> > the problem. I agree that the rules, thoa, are not overly restrictive.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Maybe a summary post of the rules, would be in order?
> >
> > Here is my attempt at a short summary:
>
> Great summary! Thanks!
>
> >
> > 1. castle must fit in a 1536 stud area
> > (note: this is the area of a 32 x 48 baseplate)
> > 2. surrounding lands must fit in a 2304 stud area
> > (note: this is the area of a 48x48 baseplate)
> > 3. castle must not be taller than it is long
> > 4. a castle is defined as "any self-enclosed walled defensive
> > fortification."
> > 5. you're not limited to era or geography, except nothing older than 19th
> > century
>
> EXCEPT I think you mean nothing NEWER than 19th century here.
Right. Quite often, my mouth (and in this case, my fingers) don't actually
repeat what my brain was thinking.
>
> > 6. minifig scale, meaning minifigs are appropriate with the model
> >
> > That is all I could get for rules. The rest was all suggestions and such to
> > help build the excitement. :) But I am not an organizer, so maybe they should
> > comment.
>
> Who, us organizers, guilty of elaborating as a way of drumming up excitement?
> Never. :-)
You know I love exposing secret plots. :)
>
> Larry Pieniazek
> Display Coordinator, Brickfest 2004
> August 13-15, 2004
> See you in Arlington!
> http://dc.brickfest.com
-Alfred
|
|
| |
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > Maybe a summary post of the rules, would be in order?
> >
> > Here is my attempt at a short summary:
> > 1. castle must fit in a 1536 stud area
> > (note: this is the area of a 32 x 48 baseplate)
> > 2. surrounding lands must fit in a 2304 stud area
> > (note: this is the area of a 48x48 baseplate)
> > 3. castle must not be taller than it is long
> > 4. a castle is defined as "any self-enclosed walled defensive
> > fortification."
> > 5. you're not limited to era or geography, except nothing older than 19th
> > century
>
> EXCEPT I think you mean nothing NEWER than 19th century here.
>
> > 6. minifig scale, meaning minifigs are appropriate with the model
I don't think item two is accurate. The actual announcement applies the
2304 stud limit to "raised landscaping" on which the castle is built, not
generic "surrounding lands", which could include, oh, a green baseplate.
This is actually quite a bit more limiting than what I initially thought
(I thought the CASTLE AND surrounding lands had to fit on a 2304 stud
area, with the castle occupying up to 1536 of those studs).
Interestingly, there is no height limit on the landscaping.
I'm still trying to puzzle out if item one is accurate. The announcement
talks about a "footprint", and I have yet to find a satisfactory
definition of "footprint" (okay, I've only checked dictionary.com and
m-w.com, which incomprehensibly combine the 2-d concept of area and 3-d
objects like buildings). Is the obvious test case (a structure 32x48
studs at the base with sheer walls and a headlight brick with a shield in
an outward facing wall a few bricks up) admissible? Beats the heck out of
me.
TWS Garrison
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> I don't think item two is accurate. The actual announcement applies the
> 2304 stud limit to "raised landscaping" on which the castle is built, not
> generic "surrounding lands", which could include, oh, a green baseplate.
> This is actually quite a bit more limiting than what I initially thought
> (I thought the CASTLE AND surrounding lands had to fit on a 2304 stud
> area, with the castle occupying up to 1536 of those studs).
I think this is indeed a bit confusing. I am pretty sure it is meant that the
ENTIRE MOC fits on a 48 x 48, and the castle can occupy up to 36 x 48 of that.
>
> Interestingly, there is no height limit on the landscaping.
I think it would be good to get that cleared up. How about the landscaping can
take up to ~12 bricks? Anyone think this is reasonable?
>
> I'm still trying to puzzle out if item one is accurate. The announcement
> talks about a "footprint", and I have yet to find a satisfactory
> definition of "footprint" (okay, I've only checked dictionary.com and
> m-w.com, which incomprehensibly combine the 2-d concept of area and 3-d
> objects like buildings). Is the obvious test case (a structure 32x48
> studs at the base with sheer walls and a headlight brick with a shield in
> an outward facing wall a few bricks up) admissible? Beats the heck out of
> me.
I think it is fair to say a flag, shield or a even few bricks here and there
hanging over the allowed castle base of 36 x 48 is OK, but having a sunstantial
section of a tower overhanging the footprint (i.e. 36 x 48 area) may be
contrieved as cheating... Easiest solution is to let people decide by themselves
what they think is fair. If judges think you went overboard interpreting the
rules, it will be reflected negatively in your score.
Paul
>
> TWS Garrison
|
|
| |
Hi folks,
Sorry for whatever misunderstanding there may have been regarding the size of
the castle. I'll try to clear things up a little.
In lugnet.castle, Paul Janssen wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Thomas Garrison wrote:
>
> > I don't think item two is accurate. The actual announcement applies the
> > 2304 stud limit to "raised landscaping" on which the castle is built, not
> > generic "surrounding lands", which could include, oh, a green baseplate.
> > This is actually quite a bit more limiting than what I initially thought
> > (I thought the CASTLE AND surrounding lands had to fit on a 2304 stud
> > area, with the castle occupying up to 1536 of those studs).
>
> I think this is indeed a bit confusing. I am pretty sure it is meant that the
> ENTIRE MOC fits on a 48 x 48, and the castle can occupy up to 36 x 48 of that.
I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies, but I'll try to rephrase. The
castle itself can take up no more than 1536 pegs at the base. Assuming it was
rectangular, it could be 32 by 48 pegs, or if you wanted a long thin design,
perhaps 24 by 64 pegs. If you wanted a square design you could build it 39 by 39
pegs (39 x 39 + 1521). It doesn't have to be square or rectangular of course.
The castle can sit on a baseplate or area which is up to 2304 pegs. This could
for instance be a 48 by 48 peg baseplate. Or maybe two 32 by 32 baseplates next
to one another with an additional 16 by 16 baseplate tacked on somewhere.
If you had as large a castle as possible (1536 pegs) on as large a baseplate as possible (2304 pegs), there would be 768 pegs of area on the baseplate outside of the actual walls. You CANNOT have a 1536 peg castle surrounded by 2304 pegs of raised landscaping!
So, some possibilities/examples:
-A 32 by 32 castle centered on a 48 by 48 baseplate. This would give an area
around the walls 8 pegs deep, which is enough to raise the whole thing up a bit,
perhaps even involve a shallow dry moat. Or you could use a blue baseplate to
simulate a castle in the middle of a lake. The castle itself would not be the
largest possible, but would still probably be about as large in area than the
legendary King's Castle, which I believe sits on a 32 by 16 and two 16 by 24
baseplates, and has a lot of unused baseplate space at the front and sides.
-A 32 by 48 peg (or 39 by 39 peg) castle on a 48 by 48 peg baseplate. This would
allow you as large a castle as possible, but limit the possibilities to do much
in the way of landscaping.
-A smaller castle, less than 25 pegs along each side in the middle of a 48 by 48
peg baseplate. This would allow you to build a substancial motte/hill. This
would be a smaller castle, of a similar size to say the Black Falcons' Fortess.
-A raised 32 by 32 baseplate connected to a 32 by 32 peg baseplate. Build a
small keep surrounded by a wall on top of the raised baseplate, and still have
32 by 16 pegs or maybe more of normal baseplate space to fill up further down
with a lower bailey type area. A design like this could work for a motte and
bailey castle.
> > Interestingly, there is no height limit on the landscaping.
>
> I think it would be good to get that cleared up. How about the landscaping can
> take up to ~12 bricks? Anyone think this is reasonable?
12 bricks high is a decent guideline, but I don't feel the need to make any
rules about this. I don't want people to go over the top with landscaped cliffs
which are dozens of bricks high. The spirit of this competition is meant to be
to build a castle which the Lego Company could feasibly sell for no more than a
few hundred bucks. The point is not to build the biggest castle, but rather to
see what you can do with a modest but perfectly decent sized structure.
> > I'm still trying to puzzle out if item one is accurate. The announcement
> > talks about a "footprint", and I have yet to find a satisfactory
> > definition of "footprint" (okay, I've only checked dictionary.com and
> > m-w.com, which incomprehensibly combine the 2-d concept of area and 3-d
> > objects like buildings). Is the obvious test case (a structure 32x48
> > studs at the base with sheer walls and a headlight brick with a shield in
> > an outward facing wall a few bricks up) admissible? Beats the heck out of
> > me.
>
> I think it is fair to say a flag, shield or a even few bricks here and there
> hanging over the allowed castle base of 36 x 48 is OK, but having a sunstantial
> section of a tower overhanging the footprint (i.e. 36 x 48 area) may be
> contrieved as cheating... Easiest solution is to let people decide by themselves
> what they think is fair. If judges think you went overboard interpreting the
> rules, it will be reflected negatively in your score.
I agree completely. We'll be sensibly flexible. But if it seems you are pushing
the limits of the spirit of the rules, it is quite simply less likely that your
castle win. If you have a flagpole and some shields sticking out of the side of
a gatehouse of your 32 by 48 peg castle, that certainly won't be counted against
you. But if you build a 40 by 40 peg square castle (which in and of itself is
slightly over the limits but we might just turn a blind eye to), and then have 4
corner towers, all of which project an additional 3 studs beyond the main wall
in every direction, that's beginning to make the competition a little unfair to
those who built their castles within the acual size constraints. It wouldn't
disqualify your MOC, but it would probbaly count against you to some extent.
I guess this post ended up kind of long as well, but I just felt a need to make
myself understood on the size issue, and give a few examples to make it clearer.
Feel free to post here or email me privately if you aren't sure whether your
planned castle fits within the size limits. And do ask any other questions too
of course.
thanks
Magnus
|
|
|
