Is this terrain piece legal?

Doesn't look 'roughly oval', for starters. Is min 1BW across also an issue ?

Hmmm...I don’t think it is quite legal.

Page 6 paragraph 6, Area Terrain Features, and figure 1b, both say:-
“...must fit into a rectangle of which the length plus width totals no more than 9 BW.”

The ‘Arnopov Cross’ shown above can only fit in a rectangle that is 6.5 x 3.3 BW...which totals 9.8 BW.
So it’s too big.

The second reason depends upon the interpretation of the phrase “each feature must have both a length and a width of at least 1 BW”.
I’ve always taken it to mean that every part of a feature must be at least 1 BW deep...and the ‘arms’ of the of the Cross are only ½ BW.

Having said that, if the ‘Arnopov Cross’ were 6 x 3 BW, and each ‘arm’ were 1 BW deep, then I’d say it was legal.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

I don't think that works in purely geometrical terms. 

I can't manage diagrams, but look at Fig 1c.  It is 1.5 BW wide at its widest point, but its width must be less than 1BW as one moves towards the right hand and left hand ends, especially the latter.  (Otherwise the two sides are quasi-parallel lines never less than 1BW apart and so never meeting to form the end of the feature.)

I also think that the piece might be able to fit into a 9BW rectangle if one were to rotate it so that the long part fits across the diagonal, but if not, reduce the length by ½BW and it's rule compliant.

Perhaps the more interesting question is what fiendishly cunning tactical move is Arnaud contemplating? As bad going or rough going is it like the Maginot line? Is it designed for a surprise massed elephant charge straight across...?

Colin

No part of a feature may be less than 1BW in size. So its illegal.

TomT

I didn't draw the figures, Stevie, but yes, I take the view that a tadpole shaped piece of terrain would be in accordance with the rules.  From your response, I assume that you do not, but I don't see what you - and the "many people" you pray in aid - are basing this on.

(Incidentally, if you choose your opponents carefully, the other eventuality is unlikely to occur.)

“Every feature must have both a length and a width (maximum width dimension at a right angle to its length) of at least 1 BW.” Does this say that all parts must be a base width an length and width or just the max width at right angle to the length, At the point where the sections cross.

We all know that certain players will try to gimmicky ploys to obtain an advantage with “loopholes” in the rules. Unless these gimmicky ploys are so unnatural as to be fantastical, then they should be accepted. What does this piece of terrain due to a game That is detrimental? Judges of specific  events can always Decide what they deem to be inappropriate. A player can always decline to play against a player putting down a specific piece of Terrain.

The rules to say that the terrain features are supposed to be natural And realistic. If the player using it could produce a photograph of such a piece in nature, it would certainly help. Do wavy edges equal curved edges?