Operation Torch, Nov. 8, 1942

Today is the anniversary of Operation Torch, Nov. 8 1942. I put together a short Geeklist on Boardgame Geek in honor of the event.

Butch and Sundance's Last Stand -- or maybe not

On the 101st anniversary of the gun battle in Bolivia that ended the outlaw careers of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, my step son and I played the scenario depicting that event in Cowboys: The Way of the Gun -- Scenario 20 Butch and Sundance's Last Stand, Nov. 7, 1908.

As it looked to me that it would be a pretty tough scenario for Butch and Sundance, I took the two famous Outlaws, while he took the Bolivian townsfolk and the reinforcing cowboys (who presumably represent Bolivian soldiers.

The Bolivians started off a bit cautiously approaching the Yanqui Banditos, so Butch and Sundance were able to make a dash for the corral and the horse. A couple of long-range rifle shots from the Bolivian townsfolk missed, except for one shot that hit one of the horses. (We were not playing with any of the optional rules, so that first hit had no effect on the horse.)

Once Butch grabbed a rifle off the horse the two outlaws decides to blast away at the townsfolk to get them to back off and over the next few turns they managed to hit five of the townsfolk, while only taking one hit in return. This gave the outlaws quite a few bonus cards, but a couple of them were "Town Folk" cards which were not playable for the outlaws by special rule.

By now the first reinforcements were getting into range, but the Bolivians were cautious again, after having seen so many of their friends gunned down and they spent a lot of effort maneuvering into position while trying to stay out of the line of fire.

The outlaws mounted up, and after a brief feint towards the right and center they made a dash for the board edge along the west side of board A, aided by an adrenaline card, gunning down one more townsfolk. Butch was able to ride off scot free, but Sundance had a close run of it, taking several more hits and losing the wounded horse. A fortuitous Health card kept him alive and he ducked into the back door of the Saloon to get out of the line of fire of most of his pursuers. The Bolivians followed Butch into the Saloon and he made his escape by jumping through the window and off the board, although he took one last bullet on the way out.

The end result was a victory for the outlaws, with Sundance getting away clean and Butch escaping with one hit point left. None of the six reinforcing cowboys was injured (or even shot at) but the Bolivian Townsfolk took heavy loses, losing six out of the original starting eight, although they were reinforced with two more through the play of a Town Folk card.

It was a very near-run scenario and if it wasn't for drawing that Health card the outlaws would have lost. Overall I think it's a tough scenario for the Outlaws. Not only are they outnumbered, but they can't take any losses. The outlaws have the advantage in skill, being +2 for all shots, but they can't afford to stay and shoot it out. In our battle the number of hits ended up being pretty even. The outlaws hit and killed six townsfolk (6 hits) while the Bolivians also got six hits -- two on a horse and four on Sundance (one canceled by a Health card.)

Despite the fact the Outlaws won this time, I'd expect them to lose more often than not, especially if the Bolivians try to maximize their shots and don't worry overmuch about losses. The Bolivians should especially be bold with the reinforcing Cowboys. They take four hits to kill and if the Outlaws are busy shooting at them, they're not escaping.

New starter may affect Empress Augusta Bay scenario

The new War at Sea Starter appears to have at least three ships that fought at Empress Augusta Bay included.

Speculation from ForuMINI, based on box art is:

The Shigure might be the Samidare, which was as Empress Augusta Bay, and the USS Montpelier and Haguro are already confirmed as being part of the set. If that US boat is another Fletcher then it provides another option for that class as well, although I doubt it's one of the named ships from the battle,as there are some more famous Fletchers still available.

Family Game Night at Greeneville Church II

We had a good turn-out the first time, so we will be gathering again for a Family Game Night at the Greeneville Church, Prospect Street in Norwich CT on Sunday evening, Nov. 15 We'll start at 6 p.m. and go until about 10 p.m.

We'll have the usual mix of long-time family favorites such as Acquire, Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue and Yahtzee as well as some newer fare such as Carcassonne, Tigris & Euphrates, Fluxx and Cosmic Encounter.

Directions to follow.

Empress Augusta Bay played

Having drawn up the outlines of a history-based scenario for War at Sea, I thought it would be interesting to play it out and see if it was viable straight up or if the scenario would need tweaking.

Right off the top, I had to come to terms with the inability of War at Sea to replicate the historical outcome -- which was a very confused affair that resulted in relatively light losses for the intensity of the fighting and was an American victory. In game terms the Japanese lost one light cruiser and one destroyer, although the destroyer was doomed because of a collision, which WAS makes no provision for. One US destroyer was a mission kill (stern blown off) but didn't sink due to heroic damage control efforts. Wargames have an inherent tendency to be bloodier than real-life fighting and War at Sea is on the bloodier end of the spectrum as far as wargames go. There's no game benefit for force preservation and indeed, a standard battle can't end until some significant portion of at least one fleet is sunk.

Instead I would be satisfied to replicate the general strategy each side followed and have an interesting fight.

The total value of the Japanese force was 145 points and the US force weighed in at 128 points, so I set it up as a 100-point game with three 50-point objective markers. Because no landforms figured in the historic fight, I used the sea map with no islands.

One notable aspect of the historical fight was that it was fought in darkness on a moonless night, so I used the official "darkness" rules from the Oct. 6, 2009 revisions and clarifications document on the Axis & Allies Web page.

Because of the OB and the darkness conditions, a number of the special abilities were inapplicable in this scenario, making the point values somewhat suspect in any case. Special abilities such as Chase the Salvoes, Antiair Specialist and Extended Range 4 were not possible to use, and quite a few others which might have been used, such as Lucky Escape and Lay Smoke Screen, didn't come up.

As a matter of fact, there were just a half-dozen special abilities that played a role, but they ended up being very important. They were:

Flotilla Leader (Yahagi) and Flagship 1 (Yahagi, Myoko, Jinstu). These basically guaranteed the Japanese would have the initiative and in the actual 4-turn battle the Japanese never lost initiative.

Long-Lance Torpedoes (All 10 Japanese ships) This meant that any torpdeo hit on a US ship was an instant kill, and while not part of the SA, all LL-equipped have a torpedo range of 3 which means they cannot be out-ranged by guns in a night scenario.

Night Fighter (Myoko, Jintsu, Yukikaze) The reroll didn't come into play because the scenario didn't last long enough, but the Night Fighter ability cancelled the darkness gunnery penalty, which was vital. The Japanese suffered because only three ships had this SA.

Radar Fire Control (Clevelands and Kidds). This also cancelled the darkness penalty and provided an extra die for gunnery to boot. This was very important, especially because two-thirds of the US fleet had the SA.

Rapid Fire (Hoels). Only used once, but it made the difference in a shot, sinking a Japanese destroyer.


Both sides were set up roughly historically.

The four US Clevelands (representing Cruiser Division 12) were set up in the center of their deployment area. Destroyer Division 46 was set up to the left, with two Fletchers and two Hoels, while Destroyer Division 45 (historically led by the dashing Arliegh Burke) was represented by four Kidds on the right. All the US ships were set up two per square with like ships together.

The Japanese deployment also resembled the historical formation. In the center were the Myoko and the Nachi (representing the Haguro). On the Japanese left was Destroyer Squadron 3 with the Jintsu (representing Sendai) and three Shigure-class destroyers. On the Japansese right was an ad hoc destroyer squadron with the light cruiser Yahagi (representing Agano), and the three destroyers Yukikaze, Isokaze and Akitsuki representing sister ships or near sisters.

Initially I wondered if this would be a fair matchup, as the Japanese force out-pointed the US force significantly (23 points or more than a cruiser's worth), but events proved that the points didn't tell the whole story in this matchup. For one thing, some of the Japanese ships are notoriously miscosted (Myoko and Jintsu) . For another, the special "darkness" conditions and OB meant quite a few SAs were useless and others (notably Night Fighter and Radar Fire Control) enhanced in importance.

Finally, the US ships had a small, but significant edge in toughness, that was of increased importance under the darkness rules. All the US destroyers had an armor value of 3 compared to 2 for the Japanese DDs, which meant that most US shots (often radar directed) would cause damage while much of the Japanese return fire (darkness-hobbled) missed. The same thing happened between the dueling cruisers. The Japanese armor values of 3 and 4 were too low to stop 8-die radar-directed shots from causing damage while the Japanese return fire often couldn't quite match the Cleveland's 5, especially if the darkness penalty applied.

The biggest wild card was the Long Lance torpedoes. These were unaffected by darkness and were big-enough to sink any US ship with a single hit and too long-ranged to avoid. A lot would come down to how lucky the Japanese rolled.

The Japanese battle plan mirrored the historical plan, which was to send all three squadron forward towards the objectives. The US plan also resembled history, with the two destroyer squadrons moving out to contest objectives and flank the Japanese while the cruisers hung back a little.

Like the historical battle, the fight turned into three separate engagements. On the US left, Japanese right, the American 46th DesDiv was defeated by the Ad Hoc Japanese squadron, with three US DDs sunk and one crippled. Concentrated US fire managed to sink the one Night Fighter Japanese DD, but the Japanese seized the objective. They ignored the crippled US Fletcher in order to try to help the embattled Japanese center.

On the other end of the line, the radar-equipped US DesDiv 45 chewed up Japanese Destroyer Squadron 3, wiping it out although not without loss. One Kidd was sunk and two were crippled before it was over, but the US got the objective.

In the center the two Japanese heavies were no match for the radar-quipped Clevelands. They had no luck with their Long Lances until reinforced by the Yahagi group, which sunk a Cleveland with one. The only other damage to the Clevelands was a single damage point caused by a shot from the Myoko. Meanwhile the Clevelands thoroughly shot-up the Japanese CAs and then the Yahagi and its two surviving DDs when the showed up.

The final score was 184 points for the US (134 in sunk IJN ships, plus one Objective) and just 91 for the Japanese (41 in ships -- CL, 3xDD -- and one Objective). One Objective was unclaimed. The surviving Japanese DD was a cripple, as were three US DDs. One US CL had a damage point.

Overall I think this demonstrates that it's a surprisingly even fight in War at Sea terms. Because I followed the historical deployment and general orders, I wouldn't say that either side's play was optimal, but it does appear that the Japanese point advantage is more apparent than real.

Ogre's premise

Looking over Steve Jackson's Ogre today, I wondered if it's central premise makes sense anymore, given the way technology has evolved.

A key premise of Ogre is that an artificial intelligence robot tank would be a powerful weapon, but the trend these days seems to suggest dispersion, rather than a concentration of power will be the effect of advances in computing. Ogre was designed in a pre-PC age, when mainframes were room-sized, so it made sense that you might need a large, heavily armored tank to carry it.

But now it appears that small, maybe even "nano" bots are more practical.

Empress Augusta Bay in War at Sea

Japanese heavy cruiser Myoko

It's possible to closely match the order of battle for this evenly matched battle of Nov. 2, 1943, using War at Sea ships. Night rules should be used.

The US Order of battle is pretty easy.

Four Clevelands (Cleveland, Columbia, Denver and Montpelier, 16 each)
Eight Fletchers and/or Hoels and/or Kidds (Charles Ausburne, Dyson, Stanly, Claxton, Spence, Thatcher, Converse, and Foote -- 7 as Fletchers, 8 as Kidds, 9 as Hoels)
Total of 128 points assuming an average of 8 between Fletchers, Kidds and Hoels.

The Japanese OB requires one close class substitution, but otherwise is also pretty accurate.

Myoko (24 points)
Haguro (use Nachi, 19 points)
Agano (use Yahagi, 14 points)
Sendai (use Jintsu, 19 points)
Shigure (12 points)
Shiratsuyu (use Shigure, 12 points)
Samidare (use Shigure, 12 points)
Hatsukake (use Isokaze, 11 points)
Naganami (use Yukikaze, close class substitute, 12 points)
Wakatsuki (use Akizuki, 10 points)

Total Japanese force is 145 points., but a couple of Japanese ships are probably overcosted so it may be more even than it appears.

Principles of wargaming

Drawing up lists of so-called "Principles of War" have been a past time for strategists for a long time -- since Sun Tzu a couple of millennium ago at least.

Whether it's the pithy Maxims of Napoleon or a whole book-length treatment of the subject like von Clausewitz, coming up with universally applicable principles has proven elusive. A big part of the problem is disentangling the principles of war (which are by definition timeless) from the tactical conditions of the day, especially when those tactical conditions may be very important indeed to the success or failure of a given strategy. Yet the search goes on.

The the extent that wargames accurately reflect the conditions of war, one would expect the principles of war to have some application and I think you do find that they do, but the peculiar conditions of wargames tend to in crease the relative value and importance of some principles while decreasing others.

The principles of war used by the U.S. military currently are objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise and simplicity (as stated in Joint Pub 1 -- Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces). These principles are not listed in strict order of importance, but they are in rough level of general importance in this list. Every official publication that list these principles or anything similar is always careful to say something like "in all cases, the principles are applied broadly, avoiding literal or dogmatic construction."

That said, I think we can see that some principles seem more obviously and generally applicable across the wargame table than in real life, whereas some important real-life applications of the principles have little relevance to tabletop wargaming.

Objective -- This is one that I think does retain its importance on the wargame table. In a phrase: victory conditions. In real life the challenge is not merely to keep focuses on the objective, but one of the high arts of actual generalship is determining what the objective is. The wargamer has it easier than his real-life counterparts in this regard, because How to Win is explicitly defined, so in this sense the wargamer is more like a subordinate commander in actual operations who is ordered to "Take That Hill" without regard for whether that hill is actually important. Still, one of the easiest and most common mistakes on the wargame table is for a player to lose sight of what the victory conditions are, in the heat of battle, so it does bear in mind keeping this principle in mind -- everything you do should keep in mind the victory conditions.

Offensive -- This principle is of high importance in real-life warfare, but of very doubtful general applicability in wargames. In actual operations it's accepted that final success is dependent on accomplishing some positive goal. A strong defense is to be followed up with an offensive in order to win, for any defense can eventually be overcome. But there are many, many wargames where one side or the other is cast into a defensive role and making an offensive move is not only unwise, but positively dangerous. A well-known example would be the Dunngian wargame Drive on Metz, where it's almost impossible for the Germans to muster the odds to a successful attack and even if they did, it would almost never be a good idea. In wargames where either side can seize the initiative it's still important, but it can't really be considered a principle if it's so situationally dependent. Offensive drops near the bottom of any list of principles of wargaming.

Mass -- Wargaames are, in large measure , all about this principle of war, almost above any other. The forte for wargames is depicting the massing of combat power at the decisive point. So if anything, compared to real life generalship, mass assumes an extra degree of importance in wargames.

Economy of Force -- This is the flip side of Mass, and may be even more emphasized in wargames than it is in real life generalship. The basic idea to to avoid dissipating your strength in secondary efforts in order to achieve Mass. In real life warfare calibrating exactly how much force is just enough is an uncertain business and precision can't be expected. In contrast, it's a big part of good wargame play, especially for traditional hex-and-counter wargames where calculating the exact factors needed for the most effective attacks is vital.

Maneuver -- In actual operations this is generally interpreted to mean trying to gain an advantage in mobility in order to support achieving Mass, and as such is a kind of supporting principle. Proponents of Maneuver Warfare and the Indirect Approach theories that gained popularity in the 20th Century like to emphasis the ability of astute maneuvering to achieve success at less cost in blood and treasure than hard fighting, but all successful maneuver culminates in the application of mass at the decisive point, so I don't see a conflict between these principles. And in wargames Maneuver is inextricably with Mass and Economy of Force as each factor is reflected on the wargame table. Allowing your forces to get pinned down so that they lose the freedom of maneuver can make it hard to achieve Mass elsewhere and obviously violates Economy of Force as well. As wargames are mostly about moving pieces on the board, this has to be considered a principle of elevated importance.

Unity of Command -- This is another critical factor in real life operations, but it has minimal applicability in most wargames. Indeed, even real life battles where Unity of Command was a major issue often see it much reduced in importance in wargames covering the topic. A 2-player Waterloo game is naturally not going to have the same kind of coordination problems (even with a pile of special rules) as Wellington and Blucher experienced. To the extent the Unity of Command issues are introduced in wargames, such as in multiplayer games) the aim is to increase the confusion to reflect reality. Overall, this is definitely the least important principle of wargames and probably even drops off the list.

Security and Surprise -- This pair of principles are really two sides of the same coin. Security is basically guarding against surprise and taking those deception measures you can in order to surprise the enemy. In real life military operations achieving surprise is highly sought after because of the extreme multiplicative effect. In Numbers, Predictions & War Col. T.N. Dupuy's model for predicting combat outcomes suggests surprise can double of triple the combat power of a force. Even in wargames that devote considerable attention to Fog of War such as block wargames and wargames with hidden movement systems the effect of surprise is likely to be much less dramatic. A big reason for this is that the players have much better knowledge of the possible universe of outcomes than real life warriors do. In a wargame it's almost impossible to replicate the kind of complete surprise experienced when something happens that you didn't even consider possible -- or considered and rejected as impossible -- happens. About the only time that experience happens is when you forget a rule -- and no one considers that a positive thing in wargames and players are likely to consider that as ruining the game result when it does. If Surprise plays a small role in wargames, it stand to reason that Security would be diminished as well. Neither principle disappears, but they aren't usually game breakers, although they do play a bigger role in block games and the like.

Simplicity -- The final principle of war on the US military's list, is also a minor principle, largely for the same reasons that minimize Unity of Command. The player is just one mind, or at most one of a handful of minds, controlling the activity of his side's forces and therefore doesn't face all the complications that introducing large numbers of unpredictable human beings into the mix does for real-life commanders. There's still some virtue in simple plans over complicated ones, because the friction of tabletop wargaming is still increased by the number of moving parts, but it's several orders of magnitude less than real-life command and many wargame designs introduce special rules in order to lessen the ability of players to micromanage their armies. Still, the wargamer can plan and execute far more intricate operations with his troops than even the most optimistic commander would attempt with his best-trained, elite veterans.

Bottom line -- If adapted to the wargame table, the principles would need to have their order of importance adjusted to the reality of wargame generalship. I'd suggest the revised order of principles to be as follows -- First Tier (always applicable) : Objective, Mass, Maneuver, Economy of Force; Second Tier (applicable in some games): Surprise, Security, Offensive, Simplicity. Unity of Command is off the list. Thoughts?

Happy Halloween!

The Black Cat from Spooks!

Have a Happy Halloween

Martin Wallace's Waterloo: A dramatization of the famous battle in game terms

After playing a few times solitaire and against live opponents, I think a review of Martin Wallace's unusual Waterloo game is in order.

The game caused quite a stir when first announced, especially when Mr. Wallace indicated it was going to be a limited run special edition. Wallace is a justly well-regarded eurogame designer, with some big hits in that field, but Waterloo was his first foray into wargaming.

And there's no mistake, Waterloo is definitely a wargame, although a highly innovative one, and not a merely Waterloo-themed Martin Wallace game. This caused some confusion among many Wallace fans, it appears, and not a little disappointment, as the game wasn't what many of them were expecting. It's not some super-elegant, stripped down intriguing game-puzzle of the sort prized among many eurogamers. Waterloo is full of the sort of procedures, modifiers, exceptions and quirky rules wargamers are used to seeing as their games try to wrestle the chaos of battle into some sort of game system.

On the other hand, Waterloo is not a simulation. In his designer's notes (another wargame staple rarely seen in euros) Wallace expressly denies any simulation intent and says there was no attempt to, for example, make his Napoleonic meeples represent a certain number of troops each or specific military units. But his rules do take into account the different arms of Napoleonic era warfare (infantry, artillery and cavalry) and the importance of troop quality (various rules benefit or penalize Imperial Guard, British, Dutch and Prussian Landwehr, for example).

So if not purely a game, and yet not really a simulation, then what is it? I'd say it's a dramatization of the Battle of Waterloo in game form, more than anything else. I think this characterization accounts for some of the details that euro-conditioned Wallace fans may have found so off-putting. There's a lot of little modifiers to remember and some of them may not make a lot of sense in game terms, but do in dramatization terms. While Wallace denies that there's a simulation going on, his rules do penalize British guns -- not because they were poor, but because there actually were not so many of them as he provides. He explains that they were spread out across the British front, a well-known fact to wargamers. Likewise there are rules for forming squares. Not because they're particularly relevant from a simulation point of view (few wargames set at this level -- roughly brigades -- use squares. that was tactic for battalions) but because, I suspect the British squares at Waterloo were too famous and dramatic element to leave out.

The game itself is probably best known for its use of Napoleonic "Meeple-style" wooden figures to represent the leaders, cannons, cavalrymen and infantry troops. This is not the only unusual aspect of the game, or even the most innovative, but it does illustrate the fresh approach Wallace took to the whole wargame genre -- something that I think many wargamers may have been uncomfortable with. Wallace's design accomplishes many of the same design goals of traditional wargames but gets there in fresh ways. For example, casualty markers and step losses have been seen before, but not quite in the same way as Wallace's use of damage cubes which sort of float around until a moment of truth requires them to be allocated.

Some love the Meeples, some hate them, but they are different. Myself, I think they're charming but they're not just there for decoration. Wallace uses their physical characteristics to include more dramatic elements while avoiding a lot of messy markers or rules. The British troops famously lay down to avoid artillery fire -- the player can lay his meeples down for defensive benefit. Blown cavalry mounts figure in most accounts -- so players may find their fresh upright cavalry units reduced to a "tired" status and have to lay them on their side.

And so it goes throughout the design. Although eschewing the rigors of simulation pretension, the game falls well within the mainstream of Waterloo presentations. One can quibble with design points on simulation grounds, but the overall effect is not "off" in any major way, except perhaps for pacing. It seems to unfold a little too fast, but that may be a function of player inexperience. I think casualty rates may decline a bit as players learn how to avoid costly blunders.

And the game is as intertwined with the history that it represents as any detailed simulation might be, so it's far from treating its theme as a decorative device far removed from the core game elements. Treating all the strongholds alike would have been simpler, for example, but instead each of the three key natural bastions in front of Wellington's line -- Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte and Papelotte -- has its own flavor, based on their historical impact.

Martin Wallace's Waterloo, not unlike Bowen Simmons' equally fresh (although systemically quite different) Bonaparte at Marengo/Napoleon's Triumph, shows there are different ways to skin the cat of Napoleonic wargaming other than hexagons and cardboard counters. From a wargaming design perspective it's an interesting design that questions some conventions and assumptions underlying conventional wargames.

And from a game player's perspective, the game succeeds in providing a very intense and involving and dramatic experience that does evoke the colorful aspects of Waterloo. British squares and impetuous cavalry charges, stalwart Prussians rushing to join the fray, Napoleon's grand battery blasting away and the Imperial Guard pressing forth to carry the day -- or perhaps La Garde Recule!

The physical presentation is absolutely first-rate, far above typical wargame fare and matching many of the nicer euros. As mentioned, the meeple troops will be a hurdle for some, but they do serve a useful game purpose while providing a distinctive look.

I'm very pleased with the game. I certainly wouldn't claim it's the ultimate Waterloo simulation and it's not the only Waterloo game I own. It might be the only Waterloo game in a more game-oriented collection, though, and I'd call that an excellent choice.

Looney Labs casts its first stoner

In an interesting development, Looney Labs, best known for its loopy card game Fluxx and the various Pyramid games has started a whole new game company to market adult-themed games. Turns out Andy Looney (yeah, really his name) is a marijuana legalization activist, as well as game designer but felt that there was a growing conflict between his light-hearted Looney Labs line of game products (like Family Fluxx) and his activism on the marijuana issue. So he decided a clean break was in order, hence the new imprint Fully Baked Ideas.

The initial product for the new line is a new edition of Stoner Fluxx, which is, naturally, a pot-themed version of Fluxx. Stoner Fluxx is being removed from the main Looney Labs line and won't be mentioned on its Web site or catalog.

Given how crazy a Fluxx game is anyway, it might very well be even more amusing to try playing it while stoned. Looney reports they're working on a drinking-themed version of Fluxx as well, although I suspect more than a few game groups play an alcohol-enhanced version on their own anyway.

(Optional explanation -0- skip if you know how to play Fluxx) Fluxx is a card game of ever-changing rules. The game starts with just two rules: Draw a card and then play a card. But new rules can be played that change those rules or add to them. Some cards are Actions that allow you to do certain bonus things. Other cards are Keepers, which are played in front of the player and other cards are Goals, which specify the current winning conditions -- which usually involve having particular Keepers in play. A (usually) bad kind of card is a Creeper (a sort of anti-Keeper), which prevents a player from winning -- unless a Goal says otherwise! It' s all gloriously chaotic and occasionally confusing, but a lot of fun.

It will be interesting to see how this initiative pans out, but I think there's a growing sense among the public that the so-called war on drugs has been an irredeemable failure and medical-use marijuana has increasing support as well. This may be an issue of, er, growing relevance in the future.

Battle of the Flu

Been engaged in a knock-down, drag-out fight with the flu bug for the past four days, but finally emerged victorious. Nasty little bugger.
I hope to be back on track soon.