View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:09 am




Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
[WWPD] NFTF Episode 50! 
Author Message
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
This after hours is a doozy!

http://www.wwpd.net/2013/01/news-from-f ... de-50.html

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:00 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:06 pm
Posts: 1051
Location: Raleigh, NC
Dude.

The T-26 totally has a 24" range.

45mm obr 1934 gun 24"/60cm 2 7 4+

Whoever told you otherwise deserves a slap.

_________________
Your friendly neighborhood Mathemagician.


Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:04 pm
Profile
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
yeah yeah, my correction is in the show notes :P I realized it as soon as I listened back to the ep. Was thinkin' about the T-70!
edit: and evidently, the T-70 is 24" range too! jeez. It's the T-freakin-60 that has 16" range. whatever man, I'm too old for this sheeeeeeit.

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:16 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:28 pm
Posts: 1702
Location: Sweden
Great episode, thanks for the shoutout on the September Campaign compilation.
The last 15 minutes of After Hours had me laughing like hell, the story about the bowlegged dude - it was hard to paint lol.
Besides that, foul mouthed Sean is a kindred spirit, I'm pretty much using curses casually all the time while talking to friends and also often go into Blackadder type of rants :lol:

_________________
http://anatolisgameroom.blogspot.com/


Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:19 pm
Profile WWW
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
haha it was awesome having Sean back on the show. I think he had a good time, maybe I can make him a regular again.

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:25 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2048
Location: Madison, WI
ENTJ

I am sure you are surprised. Took my first test at 16 and my most recent just a few years ago. Zippo in the variation. And like you Steve, I am a weak "E" (very situational), but off the charts on the rest.

I require my entire IT team to take the test. It absolutely helps when dealign with folks.

By the way, in one of the expanded books that describes the 16 combinations in detail, the ENTJ is called "The Field Marshall." Jon, INTJ is called "The Architect."

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:57 pm
Profile WWW
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
EntJ and intJ are also the ideal pairing in work and in love.

My wife is an intj.

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:48 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:59 am
Posts: 939
Always been an ENTJ. Which is weird considering the current me....


Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:24 am
Profile
Private
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:18 am
Posts: 32
Location: Canada
''Go on, give it another slam, Sir Michael!'' Ow!

Luke The Young Ones was a great show always good for some laughs!

Have to say after hours with Sean was great!


Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:52 am
Profile
Lieutenant

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:40 am
Posts: 595
Ristin you are right but unfortunately grumpus already sent me an email. The Young Ones made my 80's complete! I have the series on VHS but need to upgrade to disk now.


Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:30 am
Profile
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
I watched the Young Ones on some scratchy VHSes when I was 12 or 13. I loved it, though I probably didn't get half of it.

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:13 pm
Profile
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:57 am
Posts: 2470
Location: Richmond, VA
WWPDLuke wrote:
Ristin you are right but unfortunately grumpus already sent me an email. The Young Ones made my 80's complete! I have the series on VHS but need to upgrade to disk now.


Any show with Motorhead as musical guest is great by me.


Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:14 pm
Profile WWW
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
haha yeah, you can't go wrong with Motorhead

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:15 pm
Profile
Private
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:18 am
Posts: 32
Location: Canada
Curse you grumpus!

British comedy from that era was great even when your that young you don't get half of it.


Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:09 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:41 am
Posts: 361
Location: Astoria,OR
I think i am cursed, actually.
lets not forget aboot Canadian humor!
Ristin, are the " Kids in the hall " a national treasure?
I would hope so. I never laughed so hard in my life. Bruce would have to be my favorite.
Canada spawns so many funny people, who then cross over here and no one ever suspects that they are actually well-trained spies. :)

_________________
Club Santa Cruz. "The Flamin' Oozlefinches"
Lord the Grumpus, Minister of Terrain.
Image
Image
Image
Image

Image
Image


Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:00 pm
Profile
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
My favorite Kids in the Hall skit was when the dude was dressed like a cowboy and sang "Someone's gonna get a thousand dollars"

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:02 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2048
Location: Madison, WI
Nope! Best Kids in the Hall skit was the display of softball uniforms and then the actual game.

But there are som many that are great!

When I was younger and thinner, Matt Foley and I looked like brothers...

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:29 pm
Profile WWW
Minister of Memes ಠ_ಠ
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 1516
Location: Peoria, IL
INTJ standing by! I suspect there are a lot of INTJ and ENTJ's in these parts.


Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:38 pm
Profile
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:31 am
Posts: 102
Location: UK - South coast
Hey Steve, thanks for talking about the "either" issue in victory conditions.

I guess we came across as being douche bags on the forum about this and that we were trying something on with a "BS parsing" of this condition.

I've not been playing very long (started when version 3 came out), so i'm still on the steep part of the learning curve.

The reason I posted about this, was that I was genuinely surprised and didn't know "conventional wisdom" dictated that either meant both.

Anyway, I appreciate you trying to see my point of view and thanks for the discussion.

Regards

Winner Dave

Edit: Forgot to say, good work on the podcasts, keep em coming as I get tonnes of painting done when I listen to them.

_________________
Winner Dave on The Breakthrough Assault Blog

winnerdave@breakthroughassault.co.uk

LW - Understrength Soviet Tankovy


Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:34 pm
Profile WWW
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 6687
No worries man- *I* don't think you were trying to pull anything over on anyone. I really think the sentence is verifiably ambiguous.

I don't think conventional wisdom dictates that either :p But all we have here is precedent, and I've never seen it played as "both". But obviously, you guys are newer so don't have that experience!

Jon and Luke are assholes- they're just OUR assholes :P

No worries man, keep on gaming! I think it was a great question, and I can 100% see it from your point of view.

_________________
Don't be a dick.
Twitter: @SJMacLauchlan
Image


Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:37 pm
Profile
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:57 am
Posts: 2470
Location: Richmond, VA
WWPDSteven wrote:
No worries man- *I* don't think you were trying to pull anything over on anyone. I really think the sentence is verifiably ambiguous.

I don't think conventional wisdom dictates that either :p But all we have here is precedent, and I've never seen it played as "both". But obviously, you guys are newer so don't have that experience!

Jon and Luke are assholes- they're just OUR assholes :P

No worries man, keep on gaming! I think it was a great question, and I can 100% see it from your point of view.


Bah -- I just think it seems obvious. However, I am reminded every day that what seems obvious to the wife......isn't obvious to me at all. :shock:


Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:53 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:45 pm
Posts: 1616
I thought the "either" issue was a legitimate question. Using a negative in front of an "either" is not the best grammar.

The problem is basically there are two ways to read the rule:

(1) No (attacking teams within 16 inches/40cm of either objective)
or
(2) (No attacking teams within 16 inches/40cm) of either objective

Based on play experience, I'm pretty sure Battlefront meant (1). But there's no reason you can't interpret it as (2), because English has no brackets telling you the order of operations.

If Battlefront does V4 or a FAQ, they should rephrase it using "neither."

If neither objective has any attacking team within 16 inches, then etc.

One problem of relying on "conventional wisdom" is it can lead to people consistently playing a rule incorrectly. Something just becomes so common nobody bothers to look it up carefully. This has happened in my FOW group as well as in other games.


Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:33 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2048
Location: Madison, WI
Great chat about the Fearless Conscript armor.

I am way to familiar facing a FC mixed Tankovy with Lees and Stuarts... Nasty.

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:28 am
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:15 pm
Posts: 1015
Location: Auckland, NZ
webgriffin wrote:
Great chat about the Fearless Conscript armor.

I am way to familiar facing a FC mixed Tankovy with Lees and Stuarts... Nasty.

Joe's got your number then, has he? ;)

_________________
Image
Image
Cheers,
Mike

My blog!
http://www.scarybiscuitsstudios.com
-.-- --- ..- / -.-. .- -. - / ... - --- .--. / - .... . / ... .. --. -. .- .-.. .-.-.-


Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:31 am
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:28 pm
Posts: 1702
Location: Sweden
In comment on the "either" discussion, as a non native English speaker "either one" to me covers "both/all/any on the table".
In the context of FoW objectives that would imply that your opponent can't be within any of them - it doesn't matter which one, and covers all objectives on the board. It would not require the opponent to have models atop each objective.

Sure you could probably make it completely "fool proof" by writing "if your opponent is within one or both objectives you can't win", it was something I considered when I was writing custom scenarios for my campaign book as well. For me it came down to making as short of an explanation of victory conditions as possible. You can write a text to be long and cover every single aspect of what you CAN and CAN'T or MUST but at a certain point you have to let go and trust that people are not complete idiots and can think for themselves (no offense meant towards anyone). Will there be the occasional misunderstanding or confusion? Yes possibly, but I would rather have a shorter summary whenever possible than have super bloated descriptions of everything.

Edit: Speaking of bloated descriptions/instructions, the Command & Colors: Napoleonics boardgame must have some of the most ridiculously written rules out there. It's a great game, but me and my buddy Thomas could not stop poking fun of how over explained everything was - not to mention the overuse of the word "square" (as in: form square).

_________________
http://anatolisgameroom.blogspot.com/


Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:43 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andras and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

16,584,468 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y