Subject:
|
Re: Announcing the MOCC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:19:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5086 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Announcing the MOCC
|
| 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. (...) I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies, but I'll try to rephrase. The castle itself can take up no (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.castle)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Announcing the MOCC
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.castle)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
