Rather nice looking little chaps. Inspirational stuff.

Rather fab figures

Oh, I say, rather, what?

(chuckles to himself)

Only just seen them, but hats off! Excellent work!

Cheers,
Rob

Quote from: Ace of Spades on 11 August 2014, 09:57:11 AM
Only just seen them, but hats off! Excellent work!

Cheers,
Rob

Ditto - superbly done 

Lovely job, makes me want to try harder, also don't know how you got such clear photos, I have to reduce my photo file size to post them, so I loose detail, what's your secret!!

If you loose it, tie it tighter.

FK has a point; wargamers, even professionally published ones, seem to constantly mix up:

loose (unsecured) - lose (misplace)

lead (the metal) - led (the verb)

their (belonging to them) - there (is where it is) - they're (they are). They're over there with their troops.

where (in which place) - were (verb, past tense) - we're (we are). We're where we were last night.

could've (could have) - could of (just doesn't exist in the English language)

The apostrophe:

AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in  their hundreds.

I know this won't make a ha'porth of difference but I've got it off my chest now.

Dear Mr Puritan.

When a grammar pedant gets a little frustrated I just want to give them a hug and say "there, their, they're".

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 05:56:15 AM
AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in  their hundreds.

Or AFVs' - belonging to more than one Armoured Fighting Vehicle, e.g. The Divisional AFVs' tracks were all covered in mud.  

And while I'm being picky I'd like to point out that not all AFVs are tanks.  

Let's tie something heavy to Fsn's goolies and take him jogging!

No, of course they're not, so:

The armoured car's crew were getting mightily brassed off.

The self-propelled artillery peice's tracks were giving it a great deal of trouble.

The Hussite war wagons' teams were late being harnessed, which meant they were unable to take part in the defence.

And so on and so forth ad infinitum...... If we're going to use English we should at least attempt to use it properly. My main niggle is paying good money for rules sets and then having to unravel the poor grammar to make sense of the rules. If a person is going to write and then SELL rules that person could at least ensure that spelling and punctuation is correct so that the intention behind the rules is perfectly clear.

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 07:56:33 AM

The self-propelled artillery peice's tracks were giving it a great deal of trouble.

That's "piece" not "peice"

It's the Law that any attempt at grammar pedantry must contain at least one speeling mistook,

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 05:56:15 AM
FK has a point; wargamers, even professionally published ones, seem to constantly mix up:

loose (unsecured) - lose (misplace)

lead (the metal) - led (the verb)

their (belonging to them) - there (is where it is) - they're (they are). They're over there with their troops.

where (in which place) - were (verb, past tense) - we're (we are). We're where we were last night.

could've (could have) - could of (just doesn't exist in the English language)

The apostrophe:

AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in  their hundreds.

I know this won't make a ha'porth of difference but I've got it off my chest now.

Huzzay! One of the great irritations of written English has been the rise of the rogue apostrophe. It seems that very few people now can write a plural word without preceding the final letter "s" with an apostrophe. It doesn't need it. Come the revolution, I'm going to have a large pit dug in the middle of nowhere and offenders will spend a month at the bottom of it, living on bread and water. You have been warned! 

Oh borrax me flippin spellin thingy as got broke!