Author Topic: Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Official Local Tournaments  (Read 36656 times)

Offline Ironica

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • God = 3/0
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2009, 06:48:34 PM »
0
Something we have to consider.  What is the reason behind the 6 week deadline and how would this affect it (even a closed local has to be applied six weeks in advance)?

 :) --- the thinktank is actually in order to eventually reach a conclusion that, at least, a local tourney could be allowed as an 'impromptu' event.  I am sure that most hosts understand the valid reason for the 5 or more weeks allowance for a tourney to be approved.  If approved by Cactus, impromptu Local tourneys would be exempt from the 5-6 weeks before tourney submission minimum.

So far, consensus disapproves the idea of impromptu for tourneys beyond Local level.

Godbless.
I just didn't notice anyone mention why a local has a six week period.  I'm all for the change but I just wanted to make sure people also look at the possible reason why there is a six week period for locals to begin with.  Tiss all :).
Life's to serious to take it seriously

Offline Ironica

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • God = 3/0
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2009, 07:07:03 PM »
0
Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.

You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.

Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.

I like the idea of sending in a separate application to become an Impromptu Host.  I would add that the applicant must have hosted one local tournament or co-host two tournaments with the six week period in order to become an impromptu host (sorry Clinton :P).  However, I think it would be better for Rob/Cactus to have the promos/rewards be sent after the tournament.  This way, they know exactly how many promos to send you and they don’t have promos flouting around across country waiting for some random day.  They can definitely keep better track of everything if it’s turned in after the tournament.  If, in case, there are people who come to your tournament that you do not see that often, then you could make sure to get their address to send their promo to when it arrives.
Life's to serious to take it seriously

Offline disciple_drew

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
  • I trade through pay pal
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
    • Deck Metrics
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2009, 07:17:36 PM »
0
Here is an idea. What if you applied to be a Pre-Application tournament host? Here's how I see it working.

You send in an application to become an Impromptu host for the year (along with the first tournament's fee).
Rob approves your application and sends you the promos/prizes for your tournament.
You decide to host your tournament at a later date and send in the results after the tournament. If you wish to host another you simply send the next tournament's fees in and the number of expected participants.

Rob's turnaround time would be the limiting factor for the number you could host in a year. This wouldn't allow you to host one every weekend, but I think if you have that kind of commitment in a group you can predetermine your tournaments anyway.

I agree with this. I want to host local tourneys very soon. My brother and I would be hosting a Share Group for our church in the Ft. Lauderdale, FL area. Redemption is a great addition to have fun and dip into the Bible. But 6 weeks is just so long! It's a local level, the problem is right now we don't know of any one who plays redemption. We're aware people have a flesh & carnality to overcome. Impatience or losing interest certainly happens when you stretch out the date of a coming tournament. Especially when it comes to children & teenagers. Faster results would influence more participation with gamers. What if we could email the applications or fax them and reduce the waiting period to about 3-4 wks?
Visit www.Facebook.com/DeckMetrics for deck analyses, even for other games

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2009, 08:01:13 PM »
0
I am thrilled by this idea. It allows more flexibility to host tournaments, at the local level, throughout the year. Due to the national recession and compounded by living in California, finances have been tight around here lately. It would be easier for me to see "hey, I have $25 bucks in my pocket and some kids itching for a tournament. I'll run one this weekend."  at least that is how it would work for me.
The ideas set forth by the other tournament hosts have been sound ideas. I am currently falling in line with what the majority of hosts are voicing. The main thing we need to do is keep it simple to have it work effectively. And those are my thoughts.


Godspeed,
Mike
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Covenant Games.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12225
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2009, 09:25:19 PM »
0
Hmm, I saw Rob reading this earlier but it appears he is holding off on a decision for now.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2009, 11:04:27 PM »
0
Hmm, I saw Rob reading this earlier ....

No, you're thinking of the "No, you're thinking of...." thread.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2009, 09:43:08 AM »
0
As Rob prepares to make a decision, I just wanted to throw out two more thoughts:

1. In theory this should save Cactus half of their current shipping costs (if we are allowed to download tournament winner and sign-in sheets), as well as reduce general shipping by only paying for exact costs for a one-time shipment, rather than the current pre-paid envelopes that may not require all the added postage.

2. This process would also save hosts money, since we can collect the money from the players that would be used to pay for the tournament, rather than pay out-of-pocket first and hope we get it back later.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 5384
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2009, 11:34:53 AM »
0
My $.02...

I like this idea. Especially since it would allow me to host T1-MP and/or T2-MP tournaments during our twice a month game nights as interest warrants.

I also like DaClock's suggestion or something similar so the impromptu hosting doesn't become, "Hey me and a couple of buddies were bored so we decided to throw a tournament for ourselves." It also seems like a good way to cut down on any additional work required on Rob's part.

Lastly, I would probably limit hosts to no more than one impromptu tournament for every regularly approved tournament. The goal shouldn't be, IMO, merely increasing the number of tournaments. The goal should be to increase the number of opportunities for all players to play in tournaments. Pre-announced open tournaments would seem to better serve this end than would spur-of-the-moment closed locals. As an additional benefit, by combining this with DaClock's idea, you could add a check-off to the regular tourney application form and collect fees at that time, which even further reduces the paperwork over-head on Rob.

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2009, 12:57:29 PM »
0
I would probably limit hosts to no more than one impromptu tournament for every regularly approved tournament. The goal shouldn't be, IMO, merely increasing the number of tournaments. The goal should be to increase the number of opportunities for all players to play in tournaments.

I don't know that I agree with this and here is why. We have a very small and very young playgroup overall with the average age being between 7-9 years of age. There are some older players ranging from 11-13, but they are getting to the age that die hard dedication to Redemption is wavering and/or in direct competition with involvement in sports, school activities and what not. IF I can get everyone together at one time in one place for a tournament I MAY get 15 players. On average, I would say, I end up with 4-7 players at a local event. I've set up a tounament 6 weeks out, handed out flyers, made phone calls, talked to parents and ended up with my boys and I there. It happens. On the fly flexibility would allow smaller groups to engage in more Local Tournaments to the betterment of the group with no adverse actions happening in RNRS points. My players could careless about about RNRS points, but the chance to complete their local tournament promo collection or bragging rights of placing in this tournament or the chance to get a card with "a picture so cool it is sick" (I guess sick is the new awesome?) or one of those cards with the gold border.....those are what my group is interested in.
Whether the tournament is a Closed or Open Local doesn't change what happens in my neck of the woods. Everyone who could possibly attend would be notifiied anyway. I don't draw players from Oregon or Nevada to Local tournaments Open or Closed. No one is gonna make the drive. Districts and above are different and are not currently being discussed in this so I'm not going to address those at this time.
I do like the idea of hosting an impromtu tournament and being able to fill out the paperwork for it and having the option of adding another scheduled tournament to the paperwork and sending it all in together. I feel a one-for-one requirement would be detrimental to this impromptu idea, in general, as I would be less inclined to host an impromptu tournament knowing that I have to turn in a date for second future tournament. Understand that to my playgroup a tournament, any tournament, is a HUGE deal as we do not have many tournaments here. If I don't host one, they don't happen. I am still holding out hope that an older person would get involved in the game and would help with hosting and what not, but at this time they haven't appeared yet. I have introduced plenty of adults to the game (planted the seeds), but I am still waiting for the harvest........hmm, nice analogy if I say so myself. hehe.  I apologize for rambling on, but I still think we need to keep this as simple and unrestricted as we can so it will be used. I don't currently see many ways for it to be abused and it seems those have been addressed.
Rob has a unique perspective and will definately see some of the things we overlook, but I see this as a win-win for everyone IF and WHEN done simply and correctly.


Godspeed,
Mike

« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 06:34:44 PM by 777Godspeed »
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Covenant Games.

Offline Ironica

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • God = 3/0
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #59 on: September 19, 2009, 01:23:08 PM »
0
Great post Mike ;D

If ever there is a problem with the RNRS points being abused, I wouldn't care if we have it that all closed locals are excluded from RNRS.  Hoe msny people, once they dive into hosting, actually hosts Closed Locals?  The only reason I do is the consern that some people down south would make the 3.5 hur drive to easil win at a local (I doubt that will ever happen but since I only host T1-2P/MP, closed is thebest route or me).  As mentioned, my playgroup, like Mike's, is almost imposible to have a set plan six weeks in advance.

Here's praying that Rob will let us do these tournaments :).
Life's to serious to take it seriously

Offline mjwolfe

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • The Wolfe Pack's Alpha Wolfe
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption So. California Players Guild
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #60 on: September 19, 2009, 08:19:04 PM »
0
I too am in favor of this idea in general, but I don't see any value in limiting the number of impromptu tournaments. For my tournaments, making them impromptu is NOT making them CLOSED. I've probably hosted 15 or 20 tournaments, and only two people have ever come to them because they saw them on the Cactus website. My players hear about the tournaments from each other, from an annoucement in our church bulletin, from my website or by a direct email from me. All of those methods allow us to notify just about everybody who is likely to come within a few days. If I can host a tournament two weeks from now, everyone is still welcome to come and they will all hear about it in the normal ways.

So what do we do for the people who need to find tournaments through the Cactus website. Da Clock's idea of registering with Rob as an Impromptu Host means that Rob could list us as such on the Cactus Website tournaments page with contact information so that potential new players can contact us directly for tournament dates and times.

The other issue is promos. I really prefer that the players get their promos at the tournament. There is a large set of players beyond the regulars that only come once or twice a year and I don't normally see them outside of Redemption much. If I had to get them their promos later it would cause a lot of extra hassle for me and for them. So, I would propose that if we're signing up with Rob to hold impromptu locals for the entire year, that we have Rob send us one package of local promos to hold us for the year, and that we settle up with Rob by returning the unused promos at the end of the year or re-sign up for the next year. That way Rob wouldn't be sending promos out for each tournament (saving more shipping costs) and we would have them to give to the players at the tournament. We could even provide Rob a small security deposit for the promos to make sure that we settle up at the end of the year. As long as the tournament host mails, faxes, or emails Rob the application, sign-up and winners sheets and pays for the tournament afterward, the results would be official. A host should be able to hold as many of these impromptu locals as they want as long as they pay the tournament fees. The current limit of 10 RNRS points per player on locals and the cost of the tournament fees are sufficient to counter any abuse.

I personally would be able to host many more tournaments if I only needed two weeks notice to set one up.

Mike

« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 08:21:54 PM by mjwolfe »

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #61 on: September 20, 2009, 12:23:27 PM »
0
The other issue is promos. So, I would propose that if we're signing up with Rob to hold impromptu locals for the entire year, that we have Rob send us one package of local promos to hold us for the year, and that we settle up with Rob by returning the unused promos at the end of the year or re-sign up for the next year. That way Rob wouldn't be sending promos out for each tournament (saving more shipping costs) and we would have them to give to the players at the tournament. We could even provide Rob a small security deposit for the promos to make sure that we settle up at the end of the year. As long as the tournament host mails, faxes, or emails Rob the application, sign-up and winners sheets and pays for the tournament afterward, the results would be official.

I am glad you addressed this Mike. I was thinking about this, but did not post anything because I didn't really have any type of solution in mind. I think that you have summed up the Promo issue nicely and with a built in cost savings to Rob in the long run. I would have no problem signing up as a Impromptu Tournament host in order to provide my playgroup with more tournament activity. Once again another Win-Win for everyone.

Godspeed,
Mike
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Covenant Games.

Offline everytribe

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1036
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #62 on: September 20, 2009, 04:57:41 PM »
0
At first I did not like the idea but after reading all the post I think it would be ok. I have often run unofficial tournaments at Birthday party’s, etc... and often I would have liked to give out promos because that really motivates new players. I think there should be limits similar to what Gabe and Bany posted.

I think ReyZen should become the Redemption impromptu tournament Czar. That would keep Rob from being overwhelmed by more tournaments. Host would make would sign up initially with Roy and get their start up kit of promos. I would like a limit of one impromptu tournament a month per host. That would keep host from getting burned out and encouraging new host. Roy could effectively monitor everything and give fees and results to Rob on a regular basis.
Old Guys Rule

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2009, 09:14:58 PM »
0
I second Roy as Redemption Impromptu Tournament Czar.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline lightningninja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5397
  • I'm Watchful Servant, and I'm broken.
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #64 on: September 20, 2009, 09:27:31 PM »
0
I would definitely be able to host more tournaments, if not any tournaments at all, if we could do impromptu. Six weeks is a lot... the last time I did that it was such a long wait that half the members made other plans and couldn't come. The point is that things can come up and it's hard to commit a month and a half ahead of time for a tournament, when you don't know if anything more important comes up.
As a national champion, I support ReyZen deck pouches.

Offline ReyZen

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3074
  • Be a tournament host NOW!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Imitation of Christ!
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2009, 12:21:08 AM »
0
I think ReyZen should become the Redemption impromptu tournament Czar. That would keep Rob from being overwhelmed by more tournaments. Host would make would sign up initially with Roy and get their start up kit of promos. I would like a limit of one impromptu tournament a month per host. That would keep host from getting burned out and encouraging new host. Roy could effectively monitor everything and give fees and results to Rob on a regular basis.

If Rob needs me to do it, I will not refuse the hosting team's mandate.

Blessings all!
"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace." --- Francis of Assisi

Offline The Spy

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
  • Killing threads with boring comments since 2007
    • Bruce Lee+Ping Pong=Madness
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2009, 12:23:17 AM »
0
I know I am late in responding, but I really, truly love this idea! The one thing that often prevents me from hosting tournaments is the inability to see far enough into the future of my schedule. I would host more tournaments in the event that this idea took flight.
In the Beginning, God created Heaven & Earth. In the End, Man ignored Heaven & destroyed the Earth.

Offline SirNobody

  • Redemption Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2009, 03:32:29 PM »
0
Hey,

Let me play devil's advocate for a bit.

The cost to Cactus of sending out promos and prize support will be unchanged.  If Rob sends the supplies before or after the event isn't going to affect the cost of sending them.  Cactus pays a fixed rate of $1.74 (I think that's right, it might be a few cents more or less) for returning extra/unused prizes and promos, any cost beyond that is paid by the host.  So assuming the system we set up requires nothing to be returned.  Cactus saves $1.74 per tournament.  If there are 100 impromptu tournaments in a year Cactus saves $174.  That's less than the tournament registration fee for 4 districts.  This isn't a move that's going to save Cactus a very significant amount of money.

How much do the players really care if an event is an impromptu tournament or an unofficial tournament?  Those of us on this message board really care, but we aren't a very representative sample of the Redemption community.  In my experience the average player doesn't care all that much.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2009, 04:10:15 PM »
0
Quote
This isn't a move that's going to save Cactus a very significant amount of money.

That isn't the purpose.  I like when people play DA, but I don't see a disadvantage here.  Saving money is great, but the idea is to increase the number of official tournaments and therefore the amount of Redemption played and therefore the number of decks/packs Cactus sells.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2009, 04:47:31 PM »
0
The cost to Cactus of sending out promos and prize support will be unchanged. 

I disagree. If I schedule a tournament that has four categories, Rob has to send the prizes for all those categories. If I cancel two of them due to lack of participation, then I have wasted the shipping cost to send those prizes. Unless everything is sent in a flat-rate package, the cost will vary depending on shipping zones. I think if exact prize packages are shipped (which may just be Redemption Cash), then there will be savings (even if flat-rate shipping is avoided).

Besides, $174 is a lot of money to me. It must be nice to toss that kind of money away as insignificant.  ;)

I also agree with Cameron that the overall goal is to make tournaments easier to schedule, which will increase the total number of tournaments. As long as Cactus is making something from tournaments, more tournaments means more money. At the very least, it should increase general sales. I know I always sell booster packs at my tournaments.

While making life easier for hosts, we are just making sure that we don't make things more difficult for Rob. I would think that saving $174 (plus the cost of those sturdy white envelopes) and not having to include a return envelope would be easier for him.

My wife is a hottie.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2009, 04:52:05 PM »
0
How much do the players really care if an event is an impromptu tournament or an unofficial tournament?
This is really the key question.  Anyone can hold an "unofficial tournament" whenever they want, without giving any notice to Cactus.  But would making it an "official tournament" cause more people to come and play?  Personally I think the answer is yes.  I think that part of the draw of tournament is the promos and tournament winning cards.  The RNRS points are also motivational to the players that think they will win some, but everyone loves the free cards :)

Offline NWJosh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • The Force is strong with this one.
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #71 on: September 22, 2009, 06:02:35 PM »
0
Another aspect for savings was the idea that promos for 5 to 10 tourneys be sent at one time to a host.  This saves because instead of having to send package after package to hosts it would be one package which could save money.
I never want to grow up, hmmm maybe thats why I'm a youth pastor.

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 3829
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #72 on: September 22, 2009, 11:39:21 PM »
0
This process would also save hosts money, since we can collect the money from the players that would be used to pay for the tournament, rather than pay out-of-pocket first and hope we get it back later.

This is my biggest problem. Often I have to save a lot of money to be able to pay for a tournament and then wait 6 weeks to get any money back from that tournament in order to pay for another one.  If I held impromptu tournaments, I would be able to host nearly every week if it were allowed to do so. and I could then get extra categories involved that ususally dont see a lot of action at the local level.

Here are some of the benefits of this system.

1. It makes locals easier to host. There is less time spent planning a tournament and a quicker return on your "investment" of time and capital.
2. more locals can be hosted in a year.  I could easily host one a month and use the money from those locals to do a district every other month.
3. More locals means more categories will be played so more varieties of redemption will be offered to new "recruits"  maybe type 1 is not their thing but they may LOVE booster draft!
4. Saves cactus money and any money saved is good money.
5. Locals are where noobs can cut their teeth and the more they play the better they will get.  Since this will undoubtedly increase thenimber of local tournaments, this will help increase thenumber of quality players overall.
6. As Soul Seeker mentioned, these trounametns can be scheduled around babies, bar-mitzvahs and bowling leagues.  Life can go on instead of being on hold for six weeks.


I like these ideas, I just wish we could do them for districts as well.
This space for rent

Offline ReyZen

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3074
  • Be a tournament host NOW!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Imitation of Christ!
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2009, 12:56:27 AM »
0
5. Locals are where noobs can cut their teeth and the more they play the better they will get.  Since this will undoubtedly increase thenimber of local tournaments, this will help increase thenumber of quality players overall.

Rob has always loved the concept of Local tourneys.

For me, a Local is the ultimate breeding ground for players who get better by playing limited categories and playing them well on a regular basis.  My local gaming store plans a booster draft very soon for MTG players who have existing basic Redemption decks that they used to practice against me during their free time on FNMs.  Of course I use a basic deck against them, too.

If that unofficial Booster Draft gets on the way and all MTG players who also learned Redemption play, we're looking at at least a dozen MTG players boosting their Redemption decks that night.  God is good!

I'm certain that we are expecting a favorable decision from Rob soon.  That's as soon as he gets a bit of rest from continuous shipments of TxP packs --- Kudos to you Mr. Anderson for a successful TxP launch!

Meanwhile, let this thinktank continue.  It's one of the best Redemption thinktanks I've ever been part of.  These boards are blessed with some of the greatest minds I've ever known.  And I am not overstating THE fact!

Godbless all!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 12:59:20 AM by ReyZen »
"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace." --- Francis of Assisi

Offline adamfincher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Be Godly!
    • Facebook
Re: Thinktank on Pre-Cactus-Application Sanctioned Tourneys
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2009, 06:03:16 PM »
0
I am really hoping that either this gets approved, or we can have a 4 week waiting period for tourneys.

 

Templates: 3: index (default), Portal (default), Display (default).
Sub templates: 8: init, html_above, body_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, body_below, html_below.
Language files: 2: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default).
Style sheets: 2: portal (default), gpbp (default).
Files included: 16 - 916KB. (show)
Queries used: 27.

[Show Queries]