This after hours is a doozy!

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

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.

yeah yeah, my correction is in the show notes 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.

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

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.

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."

EntJ and intJ are also the ideal pairing in work and in love.

My wife is an intj.

Always been an ENTJ. Which is weird considering the current me....

''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!

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.

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.

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

haha yeah, you can't go wrong with Motorhead

Curse you grumpus!

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

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.

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"

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...

INTJ standing by! I suspect there are a lot of INTJ and ENTJ's in these parts.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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).