|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 22, 2018 18:25:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Sept 24, 2018 11:02:10 GMT
The rules define "Length" and "Width" as maxima, so I really don't see how this terrain can be illegal (perhaps unfortunately). And yes it does fit in a 6x3 rectangle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 24, 2018 13:41:44 GMT
I love this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 24, 2018 16:35:52 GMT
It's like a spatial awareness test - it will fit in a 6 x 3 if turned diagonally to fit!(I think!)
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Sept 26, 2018 17:45:44 GMT
Don't really have a problem with it anyway. Assuming i wanted to minimise bad going, there is less bad going than with the bits filled in. If the aim is to get two bits of terrain in one quarter when the same number comes up twice for terrain placement it must be possible to produce two or three pieces that will fit together to fill all of the space, except for a 40mm wide corridor and border. A bit like those suitcases that fit into the boot of small expensive two seater sports cars.
I suppose the gamesmanship involved might be a bit obvious then, though.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 28, 2018 16:13:34 GMT
No part of a feature may be less than 1BW in size. So its illegal. TomT Not true. The rules say that the length (maximum dimension) of all but one piece must be at least 3BW and that the width (maximum dimension at a right angle to the length) must be 1BW. In both cases tehn rules is specifically referring to minimum size of the maximum dimension, the minimum size at every point.
Think about it. If what you said was true, any rounded shape such as a circle would be illegal, as at some point, the width would have shrink to less than 1BW.
But Arnopov's shape is illegal as it is too big (and whether the shape is natural is questionable).
|
|
