Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

Articles

  • I'm Not Dead

    I'm done writing boardgame reviews.  I know people like hearing about the latest games, but it was never really what I set out to achieve here at the Fort.  My initial vision was to write articles about various different boardgaming topics...and occasionally review something random/obscure that wasn't getting proper exposure.  So I'd like to get back to that, and this article is my first step towards that original direction.  Basically, I'm going to go over where I'm at as a person roughly 12 years into this hobby.  

  • Identity Crisis: RNG and Shamans in Hearthstone

    In September of 2017, the dev team for Hearthstone implemented a number of nerfs to Basic set cards that they felt were too much of a constant in the game. No Druid deck would ever play without Innervate and no Warrior deck without Fiery War Axe. In Shaman's case, the hammer fell on Hex, which was long regarded as the best single-target removal card in the game. In their explanation for why Shaman had been targeted despite not being anywhere near the top of the meta and with only one mildly competitive deck (Evolve/Jade), they stated that “Shaman is a class that... is lacking in both class identity and identifiable weaknesses.” and that this change had been made to push the class toward achieving both of those goals. At the time, most players would have argued that Shaman was lacking in identifiable strengths, but the change happened and here we are, 9 months later, able to declare partial success: Shaman still lacks an identity, but it has weaknesses aplenty. 

  • Idiots



    itiots_imageConsider for a moment -- you’re a soldier in a big concrete bunker.  Coming up the hill towards you are: a) a group of 20 men with rifles, and b) a tank.  Beside you in the bunker is an artillery piece, the words “Anti-Tank Gun” written on it.  Which should you fire at?  The men, or the tank?  This isn't a trick question; go with your gut.

  • If E3 were a Board Games Event...

    E32010So it's E3 week, so Bill Abner and crew are all out at E3. Next year, I'm going to try to join them but for now it means that there's no Cracked LCD for this week. Next week, we're doing the first-ever published BATTLES OF WESTEROS review and the week after that will be my love letter to Small Box Games. I've got an interview with Jim Bailey of Grindhouse Games in the works along with reviews for a couple of Victory Point Games and maybe I'll finally get around to writing up HORUS HERESY after that. But oh, wait...I just got an early copy of DEFENDERS OF THE REALM on the doorstep...

    On the video games front, SIN & PUNISHMENT: STAR SUCCESSOR is the next big review but I'm also doing the XBLA version of RISK with the cats and all that.

    But for now, check out Gameshark's E3 coverage.

    You know, it got me thinking...what if E3 were a tabletop gaming event? That sounds like a call for a very special Cracked LCD Countdown!

    1) It would be held in an Econo-lodge just off I-75, somewhere outside of Macon, Georgia.

     

     

    2) Attendence would be even more exclusive than E3. Attendees would be carefully screened by a committee including Alan Moon and his inner circle and all would be required to both cite the exact number of hairs in Frank Branham’s beard and produce evidence of having actually played DIE MACHER sometime before 1995.

     

     

     

    3)At the Fantasy Flight Games press event, Christian Petersen would take the stage and it would be revealed at last that he is actually the Monopoly Man. He would light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill before announcing the 2010-2011 FFG lineup, which include a Terrinoth-themed reprint of ROADS AND BOATS and a previously unannounced title in which every single component including the rulebook, board, and box are made of cheap Chinese plastic.

     

     

    4)The Rio Grande Games press event would consist of a shy, nervous man holding up games while Jay Tummelson describes each as “the next PUERTO RICO, but without all the slavery”.

     

     

     

    5)The Days of Wonder press event would almost certainly include Eric Hautemont with a headset microphone and a cascade of Powerpoint presentations reminding the audience that they publish TICKET TO RIDE. Speculation continues as to win TICKET TO RIDE: AUSCHWITZ will be announced.

     

     

     

    6)Musical guests at E3 included Eminem, Method Man and Redman, Jane’s Addiction, and Soundgarden. At this event, it’d be Loreena McKennit, Weird Al Yankovic, and somebody’s wife/daughter/sister/girlfriend singing an assortment of showtune favorites.

     

     

     

    7)Booth babes would also be wives/daughters/sisters/girlfriends and the weight ratio comparing them to E3 booth babes would be about 3:1. And still the boys line up.

     

     

    8)A new board gaming concept that would involve players having to stand up and move around would be laughed out of existence.

     

     

    9)Bright lights and loud sounds in the exhibit hall would be discouraged so as to not break the concentration of folks looking at the new board games, and also so as to not to irritate any of the assorted ailments and conditions that affect board gamers.

     

     

    10)About 100 people including exhibitors would attend.

     



    Michael is a member of the Fortress: Ameritrash staff, and a regular columnist for Gameshark.

    Click here for more board game articles by Michael Barnes.

  • Imperial Assault: Skirmish On

    It's not widely known, but there was a sequence filmed for the end of The Empire Strikes Back that never made it into the final edit. In it Luke, Leia and Lando, supported by a squad of Rebel troopers, try and rescue Han from the carbonite freezing chamber. The rebels pour into the room, taking up positions and opening up fire on the Stormtroopers stationed there. It's pretty spectacular.

    Several Stormtroopers get killed in the initial volley. But the remnants the arrival of an Imperial officer and a Stormtrooper commander rallies the rest. In response Luke and Leia wade in. She's latter laying down fire with the rebels. He's swinging his lightsaber left and right with blinding speed, hoping to strike down the officers. Meanwhile R2-D2, covered by Lando, is hacking the Cloud City network, downloading crucial intelligence.

    Things don't work out. Luke kills his targets but has bitten off more than he can chew and gets surrounded by Stormtroopers and struck unconscious. They then dispose of Leia and her squad with brutal efficiency. R2, with the plans on board, puts up a valiant defence, electrocuting a Stormtrooper before he's overwhelmed and burnt by laser fire. It's a sad scene, and got cut for giving the film too much of a depressing ending.

    Of course, none of this is real. It was a recent skirmish game of Imperial Assault, and it was thrilling, bringing the films to life in a way that no other Star Wars game has ever done for me. X-Wing and Armada look fantastic but they feel too impersonal. Even when Luke is riding in that X-Wing, it still has the generic stat line of an X-Wing. A single special power rule doesn't make the difference between a rookie and the galaxy's last Jedi Knight.

    Skirmish mode, on the other hand, is a triumph of both tactics and storytelling. Every character have a unique set of stats and abilities. Each also comes with a card that enhances the narrative potential of the figure. The new Obi-Wan Kenobi pack, for example, has "I must go alone".  This helps the old man avoid ranged attacks as he strides forward to meet his grim destiny in lightsaber combat. Playing it as he dashes toward his intended target evokes a real sense of proud desperation. Much like that evoked by his final scene in Star Wars.

    Campaign games don't use these cards. Indeed they make relatively scant use of the special characters generally, especially on the rebel side. The players want the focus to be on their heroes, after all. But what is Star Wars without Obi-Wan, or C3PO, or any one of the many characters who will, at best, having but a fleeting role in an ongoing campaign? With skirmish you can have whoever suits your taste at the time. And if you want to partner Greedo with Han so they can both shoot first then, hey, be my guest. So long as you're willing to spend the points on a Temporary Alliance card to do it.

    Speaking of which squad building is way more fun and way more balanced in Imperial Assault than in the spaceship games. Even after a massive slew of single-figure expansions. With each one effectively having just one upgrade, there's almost no scope for min-maxing. So you don't get the ultra-optimised lists that rule X-Wing tournaments and ruin the game for casual players. Yet there's still enough detail in the rules to make squad building an interesting strategic challenge.

    As is the game itself. You can run in, all guns blazing, but you'll almost certainly lose. If you stick to the random selection of missions then you've got a massive potential variety of maps and special rules for victory points. The winner in a skirmish is often determined by whoever makes best use of those extra points. Eliminating all the enemy figures without losing all of yours is hard, since dice tend to even out over time.

    It also means that you can't tailor a list to specific victory conditions. You need to plan to have the firepower to deal with a huge number of scenarios. This feeds into the need to examine the map and the enemy list and react accordingly. If they're loaded up with Saboteurs or something else that brings blast surges, don't bunch your troops. Work the corridors, keep your distance. It's a great balance between being tactical enough to sustain interest and simple enough to stay fluid and thrilling.

    The downside is the map building. Finding the right tiles to build a map is a pain, and their double-sided printing makes it worse. This problem plagued Descent too, and I've never found a solution. The new edition of Mansions of Madness has a limited number of room sizes which promises to be a big boon. But in Imperial Assault, we're stuck with this wretched jigsaw.

    But it's not like the campaign mode doesn't have the same issue. And multiple times over too, as the story drags interminably on, long after everyone has tired of it. At least in a skirmish you can sit down with your opponent and be sure you'll be packing up around 2 hours later. Or possibly 4, or 6 if you factor in how fun and addictive it can be. Go skirmish. Run your favourite characters. Re-create the deleted scenes you always wanted to see. You know it's the way to go.

  • In Sickness and Health, In Strategy and Luck

    chesswithwifeOn my first date with my wife, we went to a coffee shop. It was the usual chit-chat, just asking about interests and so forth. Since I had just started playing hobby games, I mentioned that I liked to play board games a lot. I assumed the conversation would end there, so I didn’t offer many details. But then she asked me if I’d heard of a game she enjoyed. She couldn’t recall the name, but it involved little wooden men and small tiles that you played together to create roads and cities that gave you points. She was talking about Carcassonne, a game that I had also recently discovered. It was a nice bit of common ground in that nervous world of the first date.

    That makes it sound a little like board games brought us together, and I assure you this was not the case. I have plenty of good female friends who are fun to play games with, so if that was my only standard I wouldn’t have been so picky. But for a long time my wife and I did play a lot of games together. It was a standard way to spend an evening for a while. It continued after we got married, for at least a year or so. But then…we had that first kid.

     

  • In Theory

    equations-006A little while ago I played Small World for what had to be the fiftieth time. I’ve enjoyed Days of Wonder’s best game since it came out almost five years ago, across a handful of expansions, all sorts of player counts, and a completely alternate version of the game. After you play any game for that long you begin to notice all of its little peculiarities. I began noticing these in Small World a while ago. For one thing, it seems strange that the victory points are totally trackable, since one of the elements that arises in the game is convincing people that they should attack someone else. That shouldn’t even be an ambiguity, because what people score each turn is open information. I also noticed that turn order becomes kind of important, especially in the late game. The people going first have to do a little bit of defense so that the later players aren’t able to just cherry-pick everything, since the last player doesn’t need to worry at all about positioning in the final turn.

  • InfinityMax

    Lately, there’s been a lot of discussion at F:AT about game reviewing. Barnes has been all over the web, talking about how game reviewers don’t have opinions, and numerous game reviewers have been dragged around and then thrown under buses (especially the douche bag who sold his unopened copy of Black Ops on eBay – yeah, you gave that a comprehensive review).

    And since the topic has been on everyone’s minds, I thought it would be fun to poke at the open sore until we got just a little more pus out of it. I write a game review site called Drake’s Flames, and most of the games I review are comped review copies, so I have the advantage of being on the business end of the game reviewing scam.

  • Inside LauniusCon '09

    (I couldn't find the 1980s picture of him dressed like a wizard anywhere online) 

    This past weekend, ARKHAM HORROR designer and consummate gentleman Richard Launius hosted a gaming convention that started out as something small at his house but has grown to a larger public event held at gamer-friendly Mercer University. I rarely go out to these kinds of public gaming events any more, but Richard's a good friend and I wanted a chance to hang out with him and support a growing event. I think we wound up with something like 35 people there, not bad for a word-of-mouth event.

  • Inside the Game Factory #1: Interview with Jim Bailey, Grindhouse Games

    Incursion1

    I really liked INCURSION, and I'm glad to see a start-up publisher come out with such a strong product. In my emails with Jim Bailey, the designer of the game and kommandant of Grindhouse Games, I got a sense that he was a pretty cool guy. So I asked him to do an interview. He agreed, and he gave me the probably ill-advised "ask me whatever you want" go-ahead. So I wanted to make this the first in what will hopefully be a series of articles, interviews, and editorials that are specifically about the business of games, what it takes to get games published, and some of the other hidden wheels that run this industry. So it's "Inside the Game Factory #1", and for those of you out there keeping score, there is an obscure music reference there.

    It's a fun interview, and Jim proves that he is in fact a pretty cool guy. I hope they do well, it's always great to see people who are really up front, forthcoming, and honest about what they're doing in any business. These are the kinds of people that really deserve our patronage, our fandom, and our money.



    Michael is a member of the Fortress: Ameritrash staff, and a regular columnist for Gameshark.

    Click here for more board game articles by Michael Barnes.

  • Inspiration

    Hanging on the wall in a cramped hallway is a huge painting. Three boats speed across it, their tall sails blurring as they whip in the wind. The rippling sea and bruised sky are patchworks of colour, contrasting fiercely like the elemental enemies they are. Light, catching on the surface, reveals unexpected textures. Rakes of painterly brush strokes shimmer, their refraction bringing it all to life as I move my head. 

  • Inter Action

    interaction

    A long time ago, after spending countless hours pondering the question of what defines an Ameritrash games and why I chose to pin my colours to that particular mast, I was struck by the realisation that what I, personally, look for in a game isn’t particularly theme, or drama, or randomness but interaction. Most of my favourite games are highly interactive, all my favourite Euros are and indeed I’d go so far as to say that a high level of player interaction is almost exclusively the marker that separates average Euros from the best.

    And yet, pleased as I have been with that fragment of self-realisation, the unfortunate fact is that “interaction” as a concept in games can actually just as potentially confusing, open-ended, and meaningless as “Ameritrash” or “theme”. If the relatively recent thread about interaction inQuarriorsisn’t enough to convince you of that, then for exhibit B I’d point to the seemingly endless spat between fans of low-interaction Euros and those who label such games as multi-player solitaire, something I’veranted against in the past. This concept was bought home to me fairly forcefully by F:AT userHatchling who suggested I write this piece and try to clarify some of these ideas.

    We’ll start with my personal, basic definition, which has done me pretty well up until this point. In my book, when I talk about high player interaction, I’m talking about “direct” player interaction in which the actions of one player can set back the position of one or more of the other players, usually by reducing their resources in some manner. But even this isn’t hard and fast. Traditionally direct interaction has been totally open ended, in other words any player can “attack” any other player at any time as in games such asDiplomacyandRisk. This is the source of the truly open diplomatic meta-game and the criticism that all open-ended games are effectively a variant ofDiplomacy, because players ganging up on one another almost always trumps mechanics strategy,  as well as a host of perceived problematic pieces of game design such as kingmaking and kill-the-leader. It’s old hat now to point out that I don’t agree with the idea that all these games are the same, or that kingmaking and kill-the-leader are genuine problems, so I won’t rehearse those arguments again, but I will admit that it results in a uniform aspect to games of this nature that it’s often nice to get away from simply for the sake of variety. So probably the most-used solution to these problems in mechanical terms is to somehow limit the number, or target, of attacking actions available to each player. This solution has become so ubiquitous that almost all modern DOAM designs feature it to some extent and the result is games that have direct interaction, but which limit its scope. Some, such asThrough the Ages limit it very drastically. So immediately separating games along the lines of those that have direct interaction and those that don’t becomes less useful, though hardly pointless.

    Indirect interaction on the other hand indicates a game where your choices can directly affect aspects of the game state which then, in turn, impact on the positions of other players. There’s no better example of this thanPuerto Rico where the removal of each role as it is chosen has a profound impact on the choice of the next player in line, without directly changing his actual position in the game. There is also what you might refer to as observational interaction where the players actions in the game don’t impact on the choices or the state of the other players, but where each player must keep a careful eye on what his opponents are doing in order to play effectively. I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a game that is purely observational interaction, but some indirect interaction games come close, such asStone Age. There’s also a separate category of low interaction games in which the interaction can be either direct or indirect but there’s very little of it. Again, a lot of indirect interactions games happen to sit in this category but it’s certainly distinct. I doubt many people would classifyPuerto Rico as being genuienly *low* in interaction since each player turn can have a profound impact on what everyone else does, and similarly interaction in a lot of classical style dungeon games such asDungeonquest is almost non-existent, but when it happens it’s certainly of the direct variety.

    From my personal point of view, I would not label any of those previous categories as interactive games but I’ll stress again that that’s not to say they have no interaction: simply not enough to satisfy me.  However, the dictionary definition I just looked up suggests the a different interpretation: “a mutual or reciprocal action” which would certainly include my definitions of both direct and indirect interaction. But I’ll wager that most members of the public, and even the majority of less anally-retentive gamers than me, none of whom will ever have considered these definitions would, if asked, make a similar distinction instinctively if asked whether something likeAgricola involved lots of interaction with your opponents. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because without interaction I don’t get the sense that I’m actually playing against other people: I feel I’m playing against the game system. Game systems can be learned, mastered by rote, and good moves that you make can elicit no response from your fellow players other than appreciation. I like to play with people in a setting where they can react vigorously to my advances with counter moves of their own, not in one where they just have to lie supine and take what’s coming.

    So far, it’s all very nice and neat. However these definitions become rather more problematic when you consider negotiation games. With the euro-esque fashion for games that focus down on a single mechanic, there are quite a few negotiation games such asGenoa doing the rounds in which negotation is the major, and sometimes the only, form of player interaction. Gut instinct tells you these are games that feature direct interaction, but it fails my basic test of directness: the action of negotiation does not always set back the position of another player - often it leads to mutually beneficial interaction. Another problem comes from those Euro games in which it’s quite possible to smash up the holdings of the other players but where the results are applied with rigorous equality, such asDominion and the aforementionedQuarriors.Common sense tells you that these aren’t direct interaction games, but by the usual definition, they qualify.

    Dwelling on these special cases for the purposes of this article has lead me to decide that we need a different, and rather more useful definition. So how about this: direct interaction is when the actions of one player can be targeted directly at either one single other player, or a small sub-set of the other players (such as an alliance, for example). Indirect interaction is when the actions of one player have an equal impact on all the other players. You have to be a little careful with this version of the definition, because precise instances of the latter case are incredibly rare: in most games, even if the direct results of the action of one player are applied equally to all his opponents their particular differences in position and game state will mean that those results will have more impact on some players than others. But that’s okay, that’s called strategy, and I reckon you get the idea of what this definition is trying to convey. It also means that some worker placement games such asPuerto Ricocould be considered direct interaction, and that’s okay too. Because when you think about it, a lot of worker placement games don’t entirely deserve the “multi-player solitaire” label they get tarred with. InPuerto Rico you get to sabotage other people’s shipments by forcing them to sell before they’re ready. InAgricola you get to spice things up a little with the I-deck. There is some direct interaction in these games and I have no doubt that’s partly why they’ve endured so much in popularity while some of their more socially isolationist cousins, such asPrinces of Florence have fallen by the wayside in comparison. Again, it highlights why the definition of direct and indirect interaction is quite different from the definition of low and high interaction, although the two often seem to be conflated.

    Where that definition really falls down is with two player games. After all, if there’s only one other player then obviously the actions of one player are going to have an equal effect on all the other players! On first glance this isn’t a particularly big deal, because all two player games are direct interaction by the old definition, right? Well on consideration I’m not so sure. One of my very favourite two player games,Battle Line, is a funny old case in this regard because there doesn’t seem to be any direct interaction. Yes, by playing a card you’re denying it to your opponent, but that’s just down to the luck of the draw. Even it’s close cousin,Lost Cities, has some direct interaction because you have to watch carefully what you discard to either cover a valuable pick-up for your opponent or to make sure you don’t give away something they want. I have no idea if there are other 2-player Euros that don’t have direct interaction: I can’t think of any, but then again I’ve played very few.

    There’s no clear-cut answers here. Much like many other board gaming concepts there’s a whiff of the elephant test about the various kinds of interaction: difficult to pin down, but you know it when you see it. But one final thing I wanted to cover are those few outliers that inhabit that bit of the graph that we’ve labelled “low amounts of direct interaction”, although some of them have no interaction to speak of. As I previously mentioned most of the best-known examples seem to be dungeon exploration or adventure games of some kind or another, and it includes quite a slew of famous games such asDungeonquest, Talisman, Tales of the Arabian Nightsand others. You might have thought this was the worst of all worlds in many respects, with these games having neither the careful balance of indirect interaction games, or the dynamic cut-and-thrust of direct interaction. So where’s the popularity? Well it’s twofold: first and most obvious these are all, without exception, games that are rich in their own internal narrative.Tales of the Arabian Nights especially is basically nothing but narrative. Secondly these games tend to have lots of highly random elements to generate thrills and excitement. EvenTales of the Arabian Nights, which has no dice, effectively inserts randomness into the game at every turn by presenting the player with choices in which they can’t predict the outcome. In other words randomness, and especially narrative, are enough game all on their own to completely replace interaction and strategy. Not for everyone, of course, and it’s better to have all four if you can get them. But you couldn’t want for a better example of why games with chaos and stories in them will ultimately trump their predictable, sterile cousins on every occasion.

     

  • Interaction Vs. Non-Interaction

     

    Here's another user contribution...short and sweet, it strikes at a common divide between Euro and Ameritrash gaming.   --Ken B.

     

    One of the things that seems to separate Ameritrash from Eurotrash is the presence of player interaction.  Most of the interaction in Ameritrash is of the direct form and most of the interaction in a Eurogame is of the indirect form.  Which one makes for the better game?

  • Interview with a Game Publisher: Kevin Nesbitt (Valley Games)

    I have been a little busy with the typical end of the year stuff that tends to get in the way of my normal slacker self at work. As a result this post took a lot longer to come together, but finally i had some time to post this interview I conducted with Kevin Nesbitt of Valley Games.

    ENJOY!
  • Interview with an Artist: Mike Doyle

    There are a lot of things that go into making a memorable board game, and we here at F:AT spend a lot of time talking about things like Theme and Mechanics,  but the look and feel of a game can often contribute greatly to the overall experience of playing a game. With certain games, the artwork almost makes the game. I don't much care for Carcassonne, but I must admit that the little cartoon-like cities were part of what attracted me to the game when i bought it, and are what get people like my wife and in-laws to play it.


    So I went out to try and get some perspective on what it is like to develop the artwork that goes into the games we all love to play. I was able to get Mike Doyle, to respond to my emails and what follows is a conversation I have with him overs severa
    l days.

  • Interview with Andrew Haught: Designer of Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks

    With the “upcoming” (things have always been a little “wibbly wobbly timey wimey” with the release dates of GaleForce 9's products) release of the Doctor Expansion packs for Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks, I reached out to Andrew Haught, designer of the title, to speak to him about the game, expansions, and all things “Whovian.”

  • Interview with Bruno Cathala

    This is an email interview with Bruno Cathala where he shares his thoughts on Cyclades, the Hades expansion and gives us a few hints about the second expansion for the game. 

  • Interview with David Sirlin of Sirlin Games

    Sirlin_Games_Logo

    There have been many games lately involving Dominion's deck drafting idea.  In this slate of games, one really caught my attention--Puzzle Strike, from Sirlin Games.  Using chips instead of cards, a more coherent theme, and having a much higher degree of interactivity, it's one that looks like it might stand out from the crowd.

    I decided to catch up with David Sirlin to get more on his background, design philosophy, and the skinny about Puzzle Strike as well as other games he has in the pipeline.  David has game design pedigree under his belt, having done design and development work in the videogame realm with Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix (XBLA/PSN), Super Puzzle Figher 2 Turbo HD Remix (XBLA/PSN), and three titles in the Capcom Classics Collection series (various platforms).

    Sirlin Games is a small, "one-man show" publisher, so it was very interesting to hear more from that perspective.

  • Interview with Jason Morningstar, Designer of Fiasco and Co-Owner of Bully Pulpit Games

    In this Q & A, I talk to celebrated game designer Jason Morningstar about his design philosophy, his company's embrace of the Drip platform, and the intersection of play, history, and politics.

  • Interview with Nate Hayden of Blast City Games

    It's well known among my gaming circle that I generally hate economic games.

    The majority of them generally revolve around moving generic cubes around railroad tracks or shipping slaves from one colony to the next. BORING! Cripes, even the word economics makes me heavy with sleep.

    A few months back, our fellow FATtie Jur compiled a list of upcoming and potentially interesting AT games and while perusing it I saw the game After Pabloon it. The short of it? Pablo Escobar the notorious drug lord is dead and each player takes the role of a cartel head, vying for control of Escobar’s lucrative drug trade. It’s a crime economic game where are you buying, smuggling and selling cocaine. SIGN ME UP!

    I wanted to find out more about the designer Nate Hayden, his company Blast City Games and what led him to create this and his other crime economic game, San Quentin Kings, so I hired a private investigator and hunted his ass down to arrange an exclusive interview for the Fort. (Actually, I just Skyped him.)