Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: amelo on January 21, 2009, 08:29:55 PM
-
Desecrate the Temple
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a Babylonian, discard an Artifact, Temple or good Dominant in opponent's territory. If there are none, discard one from opponent's deck instead. • Identifiers: None • Verse: II Kings 25:13-15 •
Does the part where it says Discard an artifact refer to an active artfiact or one that's deactivated???
-Austin
-
oooooooooohhhhhh, so if opponent doesn't have an active artifact, Z-Temple, or Solomon's Temple then their Son of God might get discarded. Yesssss!!!!
-
or Temple of Dagon! Don't forget that one!
-
oooooooooohhhhhh, so if opponent doesn't have an active artifact, Z-Temple, or Solomon's Temple then their Son of God might get discarded. Yesssss!!!!
It can discard Glory of the Lord and/or Temple of Dagon too.
I feel like there are more, I just can't remember.
-
Is House of Rimmon a Temple?
-
no
-
Temple of Dagon is not a temple for Redemption purposes. A Temple refers only to temples constructed by the priests for the Lord. Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Z's Temple.
-
Temple of Dagon is not a temple for Redemption purposes. A Temple refers only to temples constructed by the priests for the Lord. Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Z's Temple.
Weren't the Kings/leaders in charge of those temples being built, and even then they hired workers and craftsmen. ;)
-
Temple of Dagon is not a temple for Redemption purposes. A Temple refers only to temples constructed by the priests for the Lord. Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Z's Temple.
This seems a little odd to me. I understand ToD not being a "good" temple, but it still is a temple, whether for good or ill.
It seems like calling Joshua the High Priest not a priest for "Redemption" purposes. Table of Dagon has Temple in the name for goodness sakes...
Now, I could understand DtT only discarding good temples. That makes sense with the card. However, the card just says temple.
It seems to me that DtT should definitely d/c Temple of Dagon or other similar temples.
-
Austin, read the posts before you post. I already answered this question
no
-
I too must disagree with Stephen. I've very confused how Temple of Dagon is not a temple. If Ananias is a priest and Balaam is a prophet, then Temple of Dagon is a temple.
-
Temple of Dagon is not a temple for Redemption purposes. A Temple refers only to temples constructed by the priests for the Lord. Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Z's Temple.
This seems a little odd to me. I understand ToD not being a "good" temple, but it still is a temple, whether for good or ill.
It seems like calling Joshua the High Priest not a priest for "Redemption" purposes. Table of Dagon has Temple in the name for goodness sakes...
Now, I could understand DtT only discarding good temples. That makes sense with the card. However, the card just says temple.
It seems to me that DtT should definitely d/c Temple of Dagon or other similar temples.
agreed. there is nothing on the card to imply it only refers to good temples. a temple is a temple, period.
-
Agreed. A reprinting cards has been used to "fix" special abilities to go with the theme. For example, Gabriel's reprint can't discard good enhancements, just because it doesn't really make sense for him to be discarding good enhancements. Some, such as Holy Grail, get an errata to keep the game from getting broken. Temple of Dagon is clearly a temple, albeit one of a pagan god and not a place of worship to the Most High.
However DtT, doesn't specifiy if the temple has to be good or evil. Just as the case was with Gabriel, while it may not make complete sense, DtT should be able to discard Temple of Dagon. This is actually easier to get around than Gabriel-evil factions would have no problem fightingith each other, so I don't have any problem with evil targeting evil
-
+1 with RBW, Master KChief, and TimMierz.
-
I'll have to agree with the masses on this one, Temple of Dagon is a temple.
-
Did the Holy Spirit reside in the Temple of Dagon? Was the Ark kept there?
It's obviously a "temple", that does not make it a "Temple". The difference seems pretty obvious to me.
-
Did the Holy Spirit reside in the Temple of Dagon? Was the Ark kept there?
It's obviously a "temple", that does not make it a "Temple". The difference seems pretty obvious to me.
I don't know about your version of the card, but mine says "Temple of Dagon" not "temple of Dagon."
-
You know what I mean. Don't act like you don't.
-
I know what you mean. However, I disagree with you. I think that Temple on the card can refer to Temple of Dagon.
-
So you would discard the Herod's Temple site with this card as well? What about Temple of Nisrosh? What about Temple Veil, that says "temple, capital t" in the title...
And how exactly do you desecrate something that is already blasphemous?
-
Temple of Nisroch would not be in play and the "Temple" in Temple Veil is an adjective, not a noun, so it clearly does not refer to itself as a building.
-
Temple of Nisroch would not be in play and the "Temple" in Temple Veil is an adjective, not a noun, so it clearly does not refer to itself as a building.
For what reason, exactly, would Temple of Nisrosh not be in play?
The logic that was given to me was that the card had "Temple", with a capital T, even, in the title. Even after I put the distinction in quotes to try and show the difference between a building and a Temple built unto the Lord. So I'm going with the "Temple in the title" logic that was presented.
Even if I make an allowance for that, can you tell me why you are allowed to make a thematic distinction between a temple-building and a temple-in-the-name-but-not-a-building, but I am not allowed to make a distinction between holy Temples of God and any old building with "temple" tattooed on the side?
-
Temple of Nisroch would not be in play and the "Temple" in Temple Veil is an adjective, not a noun, so it clearly does not refer to itself as a building.
For what reason, exactly, would Temple of Nisrosh not be in play?
The logic that was given to me was that the card had "Temple", with a capital T, even, in the title. Even after I put the distinction in quotes to try and show the difference between a building and a Temple built unto the Lord. So I'm going with the "Temple in the title" logic that was presented.
Even if I make an allowance for that, can you tell me why you are allowed to make a thematic distinction between a temple-building and a temple-in-the-name-but-not-a-building, but I am not allowed to make a distinction between holy Temples of God and any old building with "temple" tattooed on the side?
cuz it is a set aside?
-
You can't interrupt the battle and play something?
I mean, is this REALLY what we're going to have this discussion about? What kind of gyrations I have to do in order to discard this legally, instead of the underpinning logic?
-
By all rights is should be able to discard Herod's Temple without question, it was a temple unto Yahweh,where sacrifices and worship took place.
Temple of Nisroch wouldn't be in play *in your opponent's territory* while you're blocking.
Also, the Tabernacle was not a temple. In fact, Zerubabbel's Temple even sets the precedence in Redemption that Tabernacles and Temples are treated differently.
Speaking of Z.Temple, though... Following the special ability on Z Temple, did that temple even "Keep the Ark" as you put it, Schaef?
This is not a matter of the word "Temple" being in the card title. It is a matter of the card says "Discard a Temple" and Temple of Dagon is just that, a TEMPLE. The card does not say "A good temple" or "A holy temple" or anything. Simply "a temple." I see this as an identifier like any other. If a card is a "temple" then it meets the requiremnt, and can thus be discarded.
-
By all rights is should be able to discard Herod's Temple without question, it was a temple unto Yahweh,where sacrifices and worship took place.
Yes, but there's a reason why it's not treated the same as the other temples, historically and biblically. Do you know why?
Temple of Nisroch wouldn't be in play *in your opponent's territory* while you're blocking.
It would be if there was a card that placed-and-activated like many Priests cards did. Again, why are we arguing about mechanical technicalities and not the logic about "anything that says Temple"?
Speaking of Z.Temple, though... Following the special ability on Z Temple, did that temple even "Keep the Ark" as you put it, Schaef?
The Ark was an example; the Temples hold a certain class of Artifacts which Temple of Dagon et al cannot hold. What I am trying to tell you is that "Temple" has a specific meaning in Redemption
This is not a matter of the word "Temple" being in the card title. It is a matter of the card says "Discard a Temple" and Temple of Dagon is just that, a TEMPLE. The card does not say "A good temple" or "A holy temple" or anything. Simply "a temple."
In other words, if it has Temple in the title. I even gave an additional allowance to leave non-building "temple" titles out of the argument and still presented a question about where this logic is coming from, and we're still going in circles about the same things from ten posts ago.
I see this as an identifier like any other. If a card is a "temple" then it meets the requiremnt, and can thus be discarded.
And what precedent do we have to determine what falls under the identifier "Temple"? Well, we have something called "Temple Artifacts", and those cannot go into just any old card that says "Temple", there are specific cards to which this exclusively applies. When you say "if a card is a temple" you are just reverting to the "temple in the title" argument. There is only one thing that distinguishes the two, and it is the exact thing that I mentioned.
-
So says Schaef, Captain of the "Temple" Guard. ;D
-
So says Schaef, Captain of the "Temple" Guard. ;D
oh that was bad.
Temple of A could be in someones STOREHOUSE, ok there ahem.
I would say Temple of Dagon is a Temple, it may be a false god, but its a REAL temple.
-
The Ark was an example; the Temples hold a certain class of Artifacts which Temple of Dagon et al cannot hold. What I am trying to tell you is that "Temple" has a specific meaning in Redemption
Dagon's Temple did hold the Ark for a time, I believe. I agree that Temple has a specific meaning in redemption, I just think that it's a place of worship. There are "Temples" to Dagon, Ashtaroth, and Baal, as well as Yahweh.
"Artifact" is also capitalized in the SA. Should I take that to have a special meaning as well? Can I only discard Ark of the Covenant, since that's where God dwelled?
I think TKPRR nailed it. False god, bad stuff, real temple.
P.S. That was a good one, YMT.
-
I think that is the first time anyone typed out my full initials...
-
I think that is the first time anyone typed out my full initials...
Has anyone ever bothered with the whole name? Maybe in my next post I can just copy and paste in somewhere.
-
I'll have to agree with the masses on this one, Temple of Dagon is a temple.
FWIW, I'll side with Stephen on this one. Rob specifically ruled earlier that a "Temple Artifact" must be something devoted to the True God*. Given that precedent, I'm not sure why it is much of a stretch to conclude that a Temple, for game play purposes, must be devoted to the True God*.
*True God is my phrase, not Rob's. I don't recall Rob's precise wording, but the idea is the same.
To answer RBW... Yes, at least one person has. I know I have used TheKarazyvicePresidentRR as a form of address on the boards.
-
'temple' means any and all temples at this point, period. we cannot draw a connection between 'temple' and 'temple artifact' just because 'temple artifact' has been defined before in redemption; 'temple' has NOT yet been defined for redemption purposes. therefore, at this point in time unless ruled or defined otherwise, as long as anyone can prove a card as being a 'temple' of some sort, then desecrate the temple can discard it.
-
Agreed. Temple means Temple at this point, until further defined and confirmed. Like I said before, I have no problem with evil cards targeting other evil cards. It's evil. That's just how it rolls. The Chaldeans wouldn't have had any problem desecrating an Assyrian Temple when they were at war.
-
'temple' means any and all temples at this point, period.
For what reason?
we cannot draw a connection between 'temple' and 'temple artifact' just because 'temple artifact' has been defined before in redemption;
That is EXACTLY why we can draw a connection between them.
therefore, at this point in time unless ruled or defined otherwise, as long as anyone can prove a card as being a 'temple' of some sort, then desecrate the temple can discard it.
How exactly do you prove that it is "a temple of some sort"? What are your criteria for something being proven "a temple"?
Or better yet, let's just skip the rabbit trail and cut straight to the chase: why are your arbitrary standards perfectly fine but my arbitrary standards are too ridiculous for consideration?
-
Basically, someone that is reading the card (including tournament hosts) are going to see the word "Temple" immediatley after the word "Artifact." Since "artifact" is completely unaligned, you can discard any artifact, good or bad. To assume the same should apply to the "Temple" is logical and the most likely interpretation. To assume the intent of the card is limited to those "in the know," which hosts like me are not.
-
Since "artifact" is completely unaligned, you can discard any artifact, good or bad.
There is no such thing as a "good or bad" Artifact, based on the defined card type. That is arbitrary.
To assume the same should apply to the "Temple" is logical and the most likely interpretation.
Since Temple is not a "card type", there is no correlation between the two. There is no distinction of alignment with Artifacts simply because Artifacts do not HAVE an alignment. You cannot apply that same logic to cards that HAVE alignment.
Considering all the departures from strictly literal English that Redemption takes in creating its definitions, this is a very strange time to suddenly demand it on what is essentially a minor issue. Moreover, there are specific Temples (capital T) that have a specific purpose in God's specific plan as used by God's specific chosen people. I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.
-
I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.
Clearly I am an idiot.
-
The definition of "Temple" simply needs to be put into the REG. As far as I can see there's only a few options, either...
1) We go by temples unto Yahweh. Only 3 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple and Herod's Temple)
2) We go by a Fortress that can hold Temple Artifacts. Only 3 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple and The Tabernacle)
3) We go by a Fortress that was a Temple and can hold Temple Artifacts. Only 2 cards meet that criterion due to the precedent set by Z. Temple's identifier (Solomon's Temple and Zerubabbel's Temple)
4) We go by a Card that can be validly defined as a temple {as in an actual static building of worship, whether to the true god or to false demon-gods}. I believe only 5 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, Herod's Temple, Temple of Dagon and Temple of Nisroch)
According to the context of the card, the only one that makes sense to me is #4, but I know that I'm just a player so my opinion is rather void. Anyways, it'd be nice to get one of these into the REG.
-
I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.
COME ON! Enough.
Archangel.... I agree with your definitions. I also think #4 is the only one that makes sense.
-
I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.
COME ON! Enough.
Archangel.... I agree with your definitions. I also think #4 is the only one that makes sense.
*nod nod* the most logical. theres nothing on the card that even implies it has to be a good temple. just because its capitalized we're all somehow supposed to believe that only means good temples? please. its a pronoun when used in conjunction with the name of that temple. any gamer looking in will clearly be led to believe that 'temple' merely means any and all structures in the bible that served as temples, be it good or evil.
-
+1.
And no, because the "t" is capitalized doesn't mean that Temple Vail is a temple. ;)
-
rite, i was saying just because the t is capitalized doesnt mean we have to assume it means a 'good temple'.
-
So how come Z's Temple says "Temple" and everyone nods their head in perfect agreement and understanding, but Desecrate says "Temple" and people just start including all kinds of other weird cards willy-nilly?
-
So how come Z's Temple says "Temple" and everyone nods their head in perfect agreement and understanding, but Desecrate says "Temple" and people just start including all kinds of other weird cards willy-nilly?
Zerrubbabel's Temple's SA says "good Temple" while Desecrate's SA just says Temple.
A better question would be why, with Desecrate the Temple, you can discard Altar of Dagon but not Temple of Dagon. That question is particularly confusing in light of all the Biblical history that you mentioned that supposedly made the term "Temple" so obvious.
-
Zerrubbabel's Temple's SA says "good Temple" while Desecrate's SA just says Temple.
For that reason I might concede that Temple of Dagon would qualify, because it has evil equivalencies to the good Temples. It's a Fortress, it's historically a temple of a sort, it holds Artifacts, it is similar in a lot of ways. It's a conclusion that I had to come to through my own processes, though; no one has presented the very logical idea that it's an evil variation on the good Temples which hold the holy artifacts.
I've gotten a lot of flak for paying attention to the capitalization of Temple suggesting a proper term based on Jewish history and the Artifacts we use. But what I've been hearing in response is that it's any card that says "temple", which is essentially the same logic as capital T, and that it has to be something we intuitively know as a building, which is sort of the same logic as the historical argument. No gameplay mechanic argument was presented to support discarding Sites or Enhancements, and eventually I came across one by linking equivalent card type and function. I've frequently wondered aloud why what's good for the goose can't be good for the gander, and received no answer other than further implications that I'm not using my brain.
Oh, and I also like the use of the term "supposedly", like I'm just making up arguments under false pretenses.
-
I've gotten a lot of flak for paying attention to the capitalization of Temple suggesting a proper term based on Jewish history and the Artifacts we use.
Oops! That was my fault. I misunderstood why you were emphasizing that. I thought it was a response to daClock. I will delete my statement from an earlier post. I really need to take some Biblical History courses. My O.T. Survey class at Liberty was more of a "Run through the Bible" course. :o
No gameplay mechanic argument was presented to support discarding Sites or Enhancements, and eventually I came across one by linking equivalent card type and function.
I was suggesting earlier that Temple of Nisroch would be set-aside and therefore out of play, however I guess you meant if it was played in battle. So the question is whether sites and enhancements should be included as well. Personally I think that the term "temple" implies a fortress in Redemption, but I wouldn't care if Temple of Nisroch and Herod's Temple are included since it is not likely that either scenario would ever come to fruition.
I've frequently wondered aloud why what's good for the goose can't be good for the gander, and received no answer other than further implications that I'm not using my brain.
I don't think anyone has implied that you are not using your brain. Some of us were not seeing the same distinction that you were. That is all.
-
Oh, and I also like the use of the term "supposedly", like I'm just making up arguments under false pretenses.
I apologize for the double post, but you added this after I had already responded and I did not notice it until later.
I had a professor in college that gave me an "F" on a research paper. Her explanation was that I used the word "amongst" and nobody uses that word anymore, so I clearly plagiarized. After a brief conversation, she retracted her accusation and I ended up getting an "A."
Schaef, you are reading way too much into one word. I meant that something that is "obvious" was not obvious to me. I am not very well versed in Biblical history, as much as I think I should be. Liberty was more on the evangelical side, so the Old Testament was not reinforced. That is why, in this conversation, I see "Temple" as merely a noun that has no other distinction than a building where people worship.
-
Oops! That was my fault. I misunderstood why you were emphasizing that. I thought it was a response to daClock.
Well, the response to my pointing the capital T as idiotic has been kind of universal, not something I attribiuted to Ben or you specifically. I just don't understand being told that one
I was suggesting earlier that Temple of Nisroch would be set-aside and therefore out of play, however I guess you meant if it was played in battle.
Also, it's an Enhancement, so therefore it can be placed in Storehouse, and therefore in an opponent's territory for targeting. But again, I wanted to get away from the "how do you do that legally" because it was unrelated to "where do you draw the line at defining a Temple".
I don't think anyone has implied that you are not using your brain...I meant that something that is "obvious" was not obvious to me.
Mostly, I was referring to:
a). people acting like they didn't know what I was talking about when I described what I saw as the difference between a "temple" (which I left in lowercase and put in quotes to denote a generic form) and "Temple" (capitalized and put in quotes to emphasize the distinction I was making), saying things like how the card title had a capital T in it and such.
b). the idea that it was a conclusion that was so impossible to draw that no one could possibly come to that conclusion upon looking at the card. I looked at the card and that was the conclusion I drew, even though I am now willing to revise it to a definition that's a little broader and a lot simpler. The point being that there seemed to be two extremes at work here: your impression that I was saying there's no way you could look at it and NOT know it was a capital-t-temple-of-god, which was not really what I was saying; and my impression that you were saying there's no way you could look at it and KNOW it was a capital-t-temple-of-god. Looking back at your posts, it still looks to me like you were saying that.
-
and my impression that you were saying there's no way you could look at it and KNOW it was a capital-t-temple-of-god. Looking back at your posts, it still looks to me like you were saying that.
Oh. I see.
Honestly, my first translation of the word in the SA was "noun referring to a place of worship" and I would have assumed it meant a fortress. After your explanation, I see how it could be interpreted as a good Temple only. Like I said, I did not think of any technical religous meaning of the word because I am not as well versed in Biblical tradition as I wish I was. But that is an indictment of myself not you.
I looked at the card and that was the conclusion I drew, even though I am now willing to revise it to a definition that's a little broader and a lot simpler.
Simpler is better for people like me. I would say assume that I have no idea what you are talking about rather than I was trying to be negative toward you.
-
Again, it wasn't just a two-person conversation that led to my impression of the tone of this thread.
-
Again, it wasn't just a two-person conversation that led to my impression of the tone of this thread.
Understood. I won't say anything more at this point.
BTW, you're still Captain Schaef to me.... ;)
-
though; no one has presented the very logical idea that it's an evil variation on the good Temples which hold the holy artifacts.
So says Schaef, Captain of the "Temple" Guard. ;D
oh that was bad.
Temple of A could be in someones STOREHOUSE, ok there ahem.
I would say Temple of Dagon is a Temple, it may be a false god, but its a REAL temple.
That seems presented to me.
-
Where's the part where it draws the parallels: both Fortresses, both historically temple buildings, both holding Artifacts, just of different alignment?
All I see is "Temple of Dagon is a Temple", which almost sounds like a tautology.
-
I thought that all was implied by it being a real temple. Silly me.
-
I thought that all was implied by it being a real temple. Silly me.
Apparently you are silly, because there are two other cards in the game that depict temples but do not fit any of those criteria. It's also silly to post a conclusion and assume that all of the supporting facts are implied. The entire point of forensic debate is to present the facts and have them lead to the conclusion.
-
Hey,
Based on the wording from Zerubbabel's Temple ("good Temple or Tabernacle") The Tabernacle would not qualify as a "good Temple" and thus would not qualify as a Temple for Desecrate the Temple.
Also since Zerubbabel's Temple specifies "good Temple" that suggests to me that there can be an evil (or possibly neutral) temple. Since evil temple's can exist I can't imagine how Temple of Dagon would fail to qualify.
Herod's Temple is where it starts to become a little less clear to me, if only because it is not a Fortress. But Desecrate the Temple doesn't say anything about the temple having to be a fortress. Since there is no Fortress requirement I don't see how we can include Solomon's Temple and Temple of Dagon as temple's but not include Herod's Temple.
Temple of Nisroch seems pretty obvious to me as well, given the fact that Desecrate the Temple does not require the Temple to be a Fortress Temple of Nisroch seems to qualify just as much as Temple of Dagon does.
So I'm coming up with the following list of temples:
Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, Herod's Temple, Temple of Dagon, and Temple of Nisroch.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So the fact that the other types of cards it discards are specific types doesn't phase you? Or that it doesn't say "card with Temple in the title" (see also: the difference between David and a card with David in the title)?
-
Honestly I think assyrian camp shoulda been the temple reprint because a building shouldn't be an enhancement.
Add more fuel to the fire.
We are supposed to be temples of the holy spirit yes?
I want to d/c my opp.
-
If used by a Babylonian, discard an Artifact, Temple or good Dominant in opponent's territory. If there are none, discard one from opponent's deck instead.
Just to refresh the wording.
For what its worth, I agree with Maly as well. To draw a parallel.... Warriors gabe just says Enhancement. It doesnt specify good or bad, so you can discard both.
Same deal. This just says "Temple." Not "Temple fortress." As such, it should be able to discard ANY card that is a physical temple, regardless of type.
Also, RR's last question came from me. ;)
-
So I'm coming up with the following list of temples:
Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, Herod's Temple, Temple of Dagon, and Temple of Nisroch.
Personally, I would add House of Rimmon to the list.
-
Hey,
So the fact that the other types of cards it discards are specific types doesn't phase you? Or that it doesn't say "card with Temple in the title" (see also: the difference between David and a card with David in the title)?
It suggests to me that what the card actually says does not perfectly match up with what the intent of the card was, but it does not phase my opinion of how the card should be ruled.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Agreed. We can't be a game with 100 cards that don't really do what they say we do. We have to save that kind of thing for a card that might break the game(i.e. Holy Grail), which I don't think DtT is going to do.
-
Hey,
So I'm coming up with the following list of temples:
Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, Herod's Temple, Temple of Dagon, and Temple of Nisroch.
Personally, I would add House of Rimmon to the list.
You are quite right. House of Rimmon belongs on the list as well.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly