Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheHobbit13 on June 27, 2010, 02:39:30 PM
-
Is it legal for my opponent to play SOG NJ respond to his action and play Mayhem and then HT withought me being able to play anything dominants? If so he might as well just slap them all down on the table. I like the idea of responding to your own action but I think it would be better in mutliple dominant situations to take turns playing dominants to avoid slap jack.
-
He can lay the first 3 on the table all at the same time, that's perfectly legal, assuming he draws HT off Mayhem and you have no souls, if he can get it down before you can its still perfectly legal.
-
if he can get it down before you can its still perfectly legal.
He gets to respond to his own action how can I lay my dominants down after he plays the first ones.
-
I was under the influence there is no initiative for dominants. I thought the "respond to own action" rule is only applied to decide ties. If you could lay yours down before him, I believe yours works.
-
That's not quite true - If you manage to play yours noticeably before he does after the Mayhem then it stands, its when its disputed that the privilege goes to the last player to perform an action.
Take this example - I have Mayhem in my hand, and I haven't played Guardian yet - I drop Mayhem - I get Guardian, you get Falling Away. If you play Falling Away before I proccess that I have Guardian, I'm out of luck.
-
That's not quite true - If you manage to play yours noticeably before he does after the Mayhem then it stands, its when its disputed that the privilege goes to the last player to perform an action.
Take this example - I have Mayhem in my hand, and I haven't played Guardian yet - I drop Mayhem - I get Guardian, you get Falling Away. If you play Falling Away before I proccess that I have Guardian, I'm out of luck.
But sometimes it has nothing to do with processing. If I have Son of God and NJ in my hand and my opponent plays Mayhem I have no problem with that. But if my opponent plays SoG NJ (and I notice that he doesn't have many cards in his hand I can assume he is going to play Mayhem) so then I will play my SoG NJ. But if he is smart he will play them all at once. I don't think this is right because don't you have to let that the first dominant ability activate and complete before anybody can play another car? I have never heard of dominants being able to activate simutaneously, except SoG NJ.
-
I agree with Hobbit. I would not allow a player to play SoG, NJ, and Mayhem "simultaneously." If you play SoG and NJ, you will have to move the LSs to your Land of Redemption before you could play Mayhem. That would give time for the opponent to react.
I was under the influence .....
I had always felt this was true about you.... ;)
-
im more concerned about responding multiple dominant/optional use art abilities after each other:
consider: player A draws, plays dominant A in response to his draw. player B also wants to play dominant B in response to players A draw, but must wait until dominant A completes. however, player A also wants to play dominant C. where does this fit in?
does player A get priority and can also respond to his draw with both dominant A and C?
does player A get priority and can respond to his action of playing dominant A and play dominant C after it?
or can player A only respond with 1 dominant after his own action, and must give player B the oppurtunity to play a dominant after the draw?
-
i would agree you should have to move the lost souls before playing mayhem.
if this is true should a ruling be made about this situation?
I make an RA with a hero. opponent blocks with a set of banded ECs. i play a battle winning (can be nagated) killing one EC AND AotL simultaneously to kill the second before he can nagate the battle winner?
or is this way out in left field due to it being an enhancement and a Dom being played simultaneously?
-
Playing SoG/NJ at the same time is obviously legal. If he played SOG/NJ Mayhem and HT all at the same time then that is illegal because mayhem would have shuffled HT. If he played Sog/NJ/HT and mayhem at the same time then that is a better order but I agree with YMT that you have to collect the LS's from Sog/NJ before playing anything else.
Also when playing mayhem, you have to complete mayhems abilites before playing any dominants. If I draw FA three cards in to my draw and then play it, my opponent can make me pick it up and wait until I draw out (and everyone else draws out) their cards. but after everyone has drawn, then other cards can be played
-
Another Dominant question. I ra and get half the doubler. Who has the right of way, assuimng we play Sog/NJ and Burial at the same time? I respond to my action of rescuing a lost soul (Is it an action to rescue a lost soul?)and he responds to his action of halfing the doubler. I know that it has been ruled that burial win sin this situation but I has never thought of it like this before. Anyways how long do I have to give him to bury it before I can play sog.
i would agree you should have to move the lost souls before playing mayhem.
if this is true should a ruling be made about this situation?
I make an RA with a hero. opponent blocks with a set of banded ECs. i play a battle winning (can be negated) killing one EC AND AotL simultaneously to kill the second before he can nagate the battle winner?
or is this way out in left field due to it being an enhancement and a Dom being played simultaneously?
If the evil character left in battle isn't dying, yes than for sure you can but other wise I am not quite sure. I am inclined to say you can but I don't know if you can interrupt initiative with a dominant.
im more concerned about responding multiple dominant/optional use art abilities after each other:
consider: player A draws, plays dominant A in response to his draw. player B also wants to play dominant B in response to players A draw, but must wait until dominant A completes. however, player A also wants to play dominant C. where does this fit in?
does player A get priority and can also respond to his draw with both dominant A and C?
does player A get priority and can respond to his action of playing dominant A and play dominant C after it?
or can player A only respond with 1 dominant after his own action, and must give player B the oppurtunity to play a dominant after the draw?
Comming into this thread I was under the impression that #2 is the way to rule it, but I still don't think that it should be the case. I like #3 best.
-
Anyways how long do I have to give him to bury it before I can play sog.
You dont have to give him any time at all!! People, this is not a question of initiative, this is a question of who wins ties. If your opponent pauses for even an instant, then you should play your card. Responging to own action ONLY happens in the case of tie.
IN answer to some of hte other questions...
Dominants can interrupt initiative (providing there is not an enhancement special ability that is still being resolved) Otherwise if I blocked with a low #'s EC you would not be able to play AotL at all until I had "passed" initiative back to you.
Playing Aotl on the only surviving guy in battle is acceptable, but the other character still has initiative to interrupt and play something else until they pass initiative and are then d/c'ed, captured, removed or converted.
AS far as opponents wanting to play multiple dominants at a time. Whoever plays first wins. stop thinking about it with regards to initiative. If player A plays a dom then after it is resolved player B or player A or player Q (provided he is in the game) can play a dom.
-
what if im drawing, i draw 2 LS's, i want to play falling away and my opponent wants to play SoG/NJ on my LS's while im drawing to win the game, do i get to play falling away first or is there no inish
-
what if im drawing, i draw 2 LS's, i want to play falling away and my opponent wants to play SoG/NJ on my LS's while im drawing to win the game, do i get to play falling away first or is there no inish
This was the issue that came up when I was debating whether you are supposed to draw one card at a time, or whether you can draw both cards together before even looking at them. I believe it was Bryon who said you could do the latter, then lay FA down before the LSs.
-
I'm currently trying to get enough copies of Grapes, Mayhem, Falling Away, and New Jerusalem to make a real dominant slap jack game to play with people at nationals. Any donations would be appreciated. :)
-
what if im drawing, i draw 2 LS's, i want to play falling away and my opponent wants to play SoG/NJ on my LS's while im drawing to win the game, do i get to play falling away first or is there no inish
What is stoping you from playing FA before you draw (assuming this is the draw phase that you are talking about and not the SA of a card resolving)? Seriously. This "initiative to play dominants" madness has created a redemption sub-culture where indecisive play is thought to be rewarded.
pull the trigger and make a decision. Play FA before you draw out any other LS's
-
you cannot play any abilities, even dominants, during the draw phase.
additionally, if something tells you to draw, you must complete the drawing action (including laying out lost souls and drawing back up) and then players may play dominants after all the drawing is done. an opponent cannot play sog nj if you lay down 2 lost souls in the middle of drawing. he must wait until all of the drawing is completely done. if sog/nj is then trying to be played, you may play falling away and claim it was in response to your own drawing.
-
you cannot play any abilities, even dominants, during the draw phase.
Who says it has to be during the draw phase? Why can't you decide to play dominants during your opponents D/C Phase? or battle phase or any other type of phase? All who play the game understand the pace and play of the game. If you suspect that your opponent has SoG/NJ but doenst have a guardian out, why are you bothering to wait until after you draw LS's to play FA? honestly you SHOULD lose the game if you are that indecisive.
additionally, if something tells you to draw, you must complete the drawing action (including laying out lost souls and drawing back up) and then players may play dominants after all the drawing is done. an opponent cannot play sog nj if you lay down 2 lost souls in the middle of drawing. he must wait until all of the drawing is completely done. if sog/nj is then trying to be played, you may play falling away and claim it was in response to your own drawing.
I agreed with you ( and my previous posts show this to be true) up until this point.
if sog/nj is then trying to be played, you may play falling away and claim it was in response to your own drawing.
First of all if SoG/NJ are played during the middle of an SA then they are picked back up and placed in hand. they are not left on the table "pending resolution"
Second, if Sog/NJ are played immediately after you complete drawing, then you cannot play FA claiming that you were responding to your own action...unless there was a tie.
Doms activate in the order they hit the Table.
-
i drew FA in the draw phase i also drew the LS's in question, so i didnt have a chance to play it until i had completed drawing. opponent played SoG/NJ while i was drawing, i reminded that i had to finishing drawing before he could play anything, he picks them back up. now what happens? who gets to play first?
-
Who says it has to be during the draw phase?
What is stoping you from playing FA before you draw (assuming this is the draw phase that you are talking about and not the SA of a card resolving)?
apparantly, you did.
Why can't you decide to play dominants during your opponents D/C Phase? or battle phase or any other type of phase?
no one is disputing this.
All who play the game understand the pace and play of the game.
apparantly not, if threads like this are being made.
If you suspect that your opponent has SoG/NJ but doenst have a guardian out, why are you bothering to wait until after you draw LS's to play FA? honestly you SHOULD lose the game if you are that indecisive.
there are many reasons to bank a falling away. these reasons do not have to be explained to you.
First of all if SoG/NJ are played during the middle of an SA then they are picked back up and placed in hand. they are not left on the table "pending resolution"
an opponent cannot play sog nj if you lay down 2 lost souls in the middle of drawing. he must wait until all of the drawing is completely done.
i believe i already said that.
Second, if Sog/NJ are played immediately after you complete drawing, then you cannot play FA claiming that you were responding to your own action...unless there was a tie.
Doms activate in the order they hit the Table.
a 'tie' is a very arbitrary term. if sog/nj is played after i draw, and i choose to play falling away during that time frame, then yes, i can claim i was responding to my own draw and falling away will take precedence over sog/nj.
-
i drew FA in the draw phase i also drew the LS's in question, so i didnt have a chance to play it until i had completed drawing. opponent played SoG/NJ while i was drawing, i reminded that i had to finishing drawing before he could play anything, he picks them back up. now what happens? who gets to play first?
you get precedence over your opponent.
-
i drew FA in the draw phase i also drew the LS's in question, so i didnt have a chance to play it until i had completed drawing. opponent played SoG/NJ while i was drawing, i reminded that i had to finishing drawing before he could play anything, he picks them back up. now what happens? who gets to play first?
you get precedence over your opponent.
No you dont.
Whoever plays first gets to play first. Is is as simple as that. THe fact that your opponent mis-played their Sog/NJ gives you information that you can now use to "speed up" your decision making process but ultimately, unless you tie, there is no way you get "initiative" to play a dominant. If you tie, the "responding to own action clause can be used, but if, after you draw, you are clearly beaten by your opponents Sog/NJ then you are beaten, plain and simple.
a 'tie' is a very arbitrary term. if sog/nj is played after i draw, and i choose to play falling away during that time frame, then yes, i can claim i was responding to my own draw and falling away will take precedence over sog/nj.
Wow, someone is really taking liberties with the word "tie." I would put forward that nowhere in the world would it be considered a tie if I lay my card down a full 5, 10 or 30 seconds after my opponent. even a one second differential is not a tie.
What you are trying to suggest as the definition of a tie is basically an interpretation of Dominant initiative. A belief that certain people, under certain circumstances are able to play dominants that take presidence over others due to the situation.
That is not written in the rules anywhere and the responding to own action clause only deals with the situation where a tie (read: simultaneous playing of cards) happens.
Oh and Master K. I am not even going to bother responding to your "response" to me. We already have one Schaef and I dont want to promote another one on this board. besides most of your comments only deal with a mis-interpretation of what I said and are pretty much irrelevant, especally liked your "non-answer."
-
i drew FA in the draw phase i also drew the LS's in question, so i didnt have a chance to play it until i had completed drawing. opponent played SoG/NJ while i was drawing, i reminded that i had to finishing drawing before he could play anything, he picks them back up. now what happens? who gets to play first?
you get precedence over your opponent.
No you dont.
Whoever plays first gets to play first. Is is as simple as that. THe fact that your opponent mis-played their Sog/NJ gives you information that you can now use to "speed up" your decision making process but ultimately, unless you tie, there is no way you get "initiative" to play a dominant. If you tie, the "responding to own action clause can be used, but if, after you draw, you are clearly beaten by your opponents Sog/NJ then you are beaten, plain and simple.
a 'tie' is a very arbitrary term. if sog/nj is played after i draw, and i choose to play falling away during that time frame, then yes, i can claim i was responding to my own draw and falling away will take precedence over sog/nj.
I don't think you are quite right on that. Intent should be factored in also, like if I know I am going to play burial after I half the lost soul. I get to respond to my own action, and my opponent needs to give ample time to do this. Thus in a one or two second gap between dominants the player responding to his action wins (it is really close to a tie).
The whole point of the rule was to clear up slap check and make sure that in tight situations one dominant would trump the other. If what your saying is true than the rule is pretty much meaningless and I have to play it exactly when my opponent does. Redemption shouldn't be that technical. Technically, I can't play SOG NJ simutaneously.
MKC's comments are legitimate. And putting his argument in parenthesis, like it isn't even an argument, isn't very helpful. You criticize him for what you are doing right now. The last lines of your post is rather irrelevant to me when you don't even acknowledge his argument.
-
I would not allow a player to play SoG, NJ, and Mayhem "simultaneously." If you play SoG and NJ, you will have to move the LSs to your Land of Redemption before you could play Mayhem. That would give time for the opponent to react.
I agree that you can't play them simultaneously. But if Bob says that while he was moving his 2 LSs to his LoR and discarding his SoG/NJ cards, that his opponent Tom played another dominant before Bob could get his fingers back to his hand to play Mayhem like he had planned, then I would rule in favor of Bob. Tom could have played his SoG/NJ previously, and didn't. Therefore, Tom was only now choosing to play them in response to Bob's playing them first. But Bob gets to respond to his own action first, therefore, the Mayhem would get priority.
consider: [Bob] draws, plays [SoG] in response to his draw. [Tom] also wants to play [Mayhem] in response to [Bob's] draw, but must wait until [SoG] completes. however, [Bob] also wants to play [HT]. where does this fit in?
Tom could play Mayhem before Bob draws. If Tom waits (to shuffle away the 3 extra cards), then I think the risk Tom takes is that Bob might choose to play a dominant immediately following the draw. Since Bob would be responding to his own action, Bob would get priority in the case of a tie. Similarly, Bob would again be responding to his own action by playing HT, so he would also get priority in the case of a tie.
I make an RA with a hero. opponent blocks with a set of banded ECs. i play a battle winning (can be nagated) killing one EC AND AotL simultaneously to kill the second before he can nagate the battle winner?
This situation has already been ruled on. In this case, your opponent would have initiative to negate the battle winner with the character who was killed by the enhancement.
-
Another Dominant question. I ra and get half the doubler. Who has the right of way, assuimng we play Sog/NJ and Burial at the same time?
You could have played SoG/NJ before getting half the doubler LS. Since you didn't, you are trying to respond to the action of your opponent who chooses to give you half of it. Therefore, your opponent gets priority to respond to his own action by playing Burial in the case of a tie.
what if im drawing, i draw 2 LS's, i want to play falling away and my opponent wants to play SoG/NJ on my LS's while im drawing to win the game
If you drew the LSs, then you are responding to your own action and therefore would have priority to play FA in the case of a tie.
-
Hey,
It really all comes down to this: If your opponent performed the last action you cannot deprive him of the opportunity to play a dominant by being physically faster than him. You can deprive your opponent of the opportunity to play a dominant by being mentally faster than him.
If a player immediately knows they want to respond to their own action with a dominant, they get to. But each moment they spend deciding if they want to respond with a dominant is an opportunity they give their opponent to sneak a dominant in first.
Technically Son of God and New Jerusalem are the only dominants that can be played at the same time, but if a player wants to use multiple other dominants in immediate succession there's no reason not to let them drop them all at the same time. Yes Mayhem can't be played until the Lost Souls rescued by Son of God and New Jerusalem are in the Land of Redemption, but after that happens the player that wanted to play Mayhem with Son of God still gets to play it before the opponent can play anything.
With the Lost Souls card the action being responded to is the action of Surrendering a Lost Soul. The defender chooses which soul to give you (even if there's only one option) that choice/action by the defender is what Burial or Son of God is responding to, thus the defender gets priority.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
so if i understand correctly, a player may respond to his own action as many times as he wants with as many dominants/optional use abilities as they choose, and they all get priority before the opponent? like in my previous example, if bob wanted to play 2 different dominants (sog and ht, for sake of argument) in response to his draw, and tom also wanted to play mayhem in response to bobs draw, bob can play both dominants with priority over toms mayhem?
-
It really all comes down to this: If your opponent performed the last action you cannot deprive him of the opportunity to play a dominant by being physically faster than him. You can deprive your opponent of the opportunity to play a dominant by being mentally faster than him.
If a player immediately knows they want to respond to their own action with a dominant, they get to. But each moment they spend deciding if they want to respond with a dominant is an opportunity they give their opponent to sneak a dominant in first.
This still is unclear. I am hearing one thing and MKC is hearing something else. I hear te words tie in Prof Underwoods example and read "meantally faster than him" in this example and see no superseeding initiative to play dominants issue.
The only problem that I have is this. Say there is an RA and I have a 2 liner. my intention is to surrender the LS and then bury it. Should I announce that intention to do so to eliminate the possibility of my opponent sneaking in a SOg/NJ while I move my hand back to my cards to play burial?
In other words, should we announce our intention to respond to our own action when playing dom's to avoid confusion ehen we plan to play multiple doms in this fashion.
-
Usually what people do to "counter" Lost Souls is to turn it horizontally. If they want to bury it immediately, most people I know do the turning with a hand that Burial is already in, so that the turn and the dropping of Burial occurs all in one motion.
-
Say there is an RA and I have a 2 liner. my intention is to surrender the LS and then bury it. Should I announce that intention to do so to eliminate the possibility of my opponent sneaking in a SOg/NJ while I move my hand back to my cards to play burial?
In other words, should we announce our intention to respond to our own action when playing dom's to avoid confusion ehen we plan to play multiple doms in this fashion.
I don't think there can be any harm in announcing your intention in this case. Better communication in cases like this can only lead to less conflict and frustration.
-
I know I am still new to this compared to others, but I have begun announcing these things and it has worked very well. I think it would ne nice if everyone started announcing their intentions. Is there a downside to the "announcing" part that I haven't discovered yet?
-
If you announce your intention and follow up with immediately playing the card then I agree.
The problem comes when you announce your intention and then use that to buy you time to think about what you want to do. If you do the later and your opponent plays a Dominant while you're thinking, tough luck.
-
Great, as if Dominant play wasn't retarded already, now we get to have shouting matches and he said/she said arguments?
-
Angel of the Lord is hardly a free soul these days.
-
For instance example, YOU CANNOT make two rescue attempts in one turn, grapes allows this.
sounds like someone has not used the long day lately... ::)
-
Hey,
so if i understand correctly, a player may respond to his own action as many times as he wants with as many dominants/optional use abilities as they choose, and they all get priority before the opponent?
Correct.
The only problem that I have is this. Say there is an RA and I have a 2 liner. my intention is to surrender the LS and then bury it. Should I announce that intention to do so to eliminate the possibility of my opponent sneaking in a SOg/NJ while I move my hand back to my cards to play burial?
This is often what I do. I'll say "give you half of lost souls and bury it" and then go through the motions of doing what I said. Similarly when I use Unholy Writ I often just say "I'm using Unholy Writ" rather than reaching out to quickly discard the artifact or move the hero to my land of bondage.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I had a silly situation earlier today. I was playing a game and I had Mayhem in my hand. It's my opponents turn and while he's on his draw phase (after he has drawn his 3 cards) I ask if he drew any lost souls in which he said no. I slapped down mayhem and he slaps down his entire hand of cards and claims that he can play everything in his hand that is possible to play enters play. (his hand of cards did touch the table before my mayhem touched)
I'd imagine he couldn't because even after his draw it's his upkeep step, then prep phase in which he would be able to play characters, artifacts, and things of the sort. But thats two phases away. I thought this move of desperation was ridiculously funny because it was so stupid in nature but I just want to clear this up.
-
The only cards he could have played were Dominants.
-
And I dont even agree that he could have played dominants unless he followed up your query with a "No because I am going to play this... " then played his dominant. Pol is correct that no charaters, enhancements or anything else has a chance to hit the table.
-
I agree with the above posters. Additionally, since this is something that comes up frequently, I am temporarily stickying this thread. I'll also add it to the FAQ thread when I get a chance.
-
sounds like a good idea, questions- im sure will arise time and time again.
-
Oh so I can slap down sog nj after mayhem now? the reason I say this is because someone did that in a game vs me today and mayhem was clearly played first.
-
Oh so I can slap down sog nj after mayhem now? the reason I say this is because someone did that in a game vs me today and mayhem was clearly played first.
It depends. If you just drew/searched for one or both SoG/NJ and played them immediately, you are responding to your own action, and if you were clearly intending to play them as soon as you got them, then you get priority.
However, if you are not performing such an action, and your opponent plays Mayhem, then you can't out of the blue say that you were planning on playing SoG/NJ and play them.
-
It depends. If you just drew/searched for one or both SoG/NJ and played them immediately, you are responding to your own action, and if you were clearly intending to play them as soon as you got them, then you get priority.
However, if you are not performing such an action, and your opponent plays Mayhem, then you can't out of the blue say that you were planning on playing SoG/NJ and play them.
+1
-
I three. Lets say I have Sog/NJ and I am debating on playing them. While I am waiting and thinking, My opponent plays Mayhem. I DO NOT get to play SOg/NJ before I shuffle and draw. I just lost them..too bad..soo sad.
NOW. lets say I played false peace to search for NJ when I already have SOG in my hand. After I search and then shuffle my deck (because shuffling the deck is an unwritten part of the SA of any search card), My opponent plays mayhem. I CAN play SoG/NJ and say.."I am responding to my search" and then shuffle and draw due to mayhem.
This is a legitimate play
-
I three. Lets say I have Sog/NJ and I am debating on playing them. While I am waiting and thinking, My opponent plays Mayhem. I DO NOT get to play SOg/NJ before I shuffle and draw. I just lost them..too bad..soo sad.
NOW. lets say I played false peace to search for NJ when I already have SOG in my hand. After I search and then shuffle my deck (because shuffling the deck is an unwritten part of the SA of any search card), My opponent plays mayhem. I CAN play SoG/NJ and say.."I am responding to my search" and then shuffle and draw due to mayhem.
This is a legitimate play
How about I play False Peace to search for a lost soul when I already have SoG/NJ in my hand in order to have enough lost souls to rescue?
How about I play False Peace to search for SoG when I already have NJ in my hand, but select MY Mayhem instead and play it (because I noticed I forgot to put SoG in my deck and that's just how I roll)?
-
I three. Lets say I have Sog/NJ and I am debating on playing them. While I am waiting and thinking, My opponent plays Mayhem. I DO NOT get to play SOg/NJ before I shuffle and draw. I just lost them..too bad..soo sad.
NOW. lets say I played false peace to search for NJ when I already have SOG in my hand. After I search and then shuffle my deck (because shuffling the deck is an unwritten part of the SA of any search card), My opponent plays mayhem. I CAN play SoG/NJ and say.."I am responding to my search" and then shuffle and draw due to mayhem.
This is a legitimate play
How about I play False Peace to search for a lost soul when I already have SoG/NJ in my hand in order to have enough lost souls to rescue?
How about I play False Peace to search for SoG when I already have NJ in my hand, but select MY Mayhem instead and play it (because I noticed I forgot to put SoG in my deck and that's just how I roll)?
If it were anyone but you, I would rule in the favor of the person using False Peace in both situations. If it were you, I'd definitely rule in favor of your opponent...because that's how I roll... ;)
-
But what if my opponent was...
DUH, Duh, duh...
...MJB...and we were BOTH playing ANB decks. :o
-
But what if my opponent was...
DUH, Duh, duh...
...MJB...and we were BOTH playing ANB decks. :o
Hmmm....that's a tough one. I'd probably have to flip a coin. Or just disqualify you both.
-
If it were me i'd rule for both of you and promote you all to redemption elder. The redemption boards needs more AnB ;)