New Page — Shoot the Backpack

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#1  Edited By Duffyside

Need help adding games to this list. Concept is Shoot the Backpack; shooters wherein a typically large enemy, usually spewing fire, is wearing a backpack to fuel its weapon. And yo, you need to shoot that shit to bring him down.

Just submitted Killzone 2, Vanquish and Bulletstorm. I know there's more.

Avatar image for slaker117
Slaker117

4873

Forum Posts

3305

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 11

#2  Edited By Slaker117

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#3  Edited By Duffyside

Thanks for your help, kind sir.

Avatar image for peasantabuse
PeasantAbuse

5098

Forum Posts

256

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By PeasantAbuse

Added one game. At first I thought this was a pretty common concept, but I'm having trouble thinking of games with this.

Avatar image for meierthered
MeierTheRed

6054

Forum Posts

1701

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By MeierTheRed

Added Resistance 3.

Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#6  Edited By Duffyside

@pornstorestiffisaid:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

Avatar image for saturdaynightspecials
SaturdayNightSpecials

2589

Forum Posts

90703

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 25

@Duffyside said:

@pornstorestiffisaid:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

I posit that the backpack should explode when shot.

Also I submitted Fear 2.

Avatar image for aperturesilence
ApertureSilence

1184

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#8  Edited By ApertureSilence

The new Dead to Rights needs to be on this list. I just finished it, and there was backpack-shooting to be had.

Avatar image for soviet666
Soviet666

293

Forum Posts

1838

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Soviet666

What if you don't necessary have to, but can shoot the backpack?

Avatar image for a_dog
A_Dog

762

Forum Posts

311

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

#10  Edited By A_Dog

My first thought, for some reason, was Dingodile but you don't shoot his backpack....

Avatar image for euandewar
EuanDewar

5159

Forum Posts

136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By EuanDewar

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

Avatar image for bhaigh
bhaigh

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By bhaigh

Added Army of Two: The 40th Day.

Avatar image for mrasmus
mrasmus

39

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#13  Edited By mrasmus

What about Bane from Arkham Asylum? He definitely has a backpack, but you're not so much shooting it as... ripping it's connections off of him. And it doesn't explode, either.

Avatar image for solidwolf52
solidwolf52

371

Forum Posts

1704

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 8

#14  Edited By solidwolf52

Gears of War 2 and 3. You can shoot the backs of the guys with scorchers and they'll blow up.

Avatar image for bigbosscb
BigBossCB

21

Forum Posts

13

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By BigBossCB

Hmm, would you count the giant claw enemies from Resident Evil 4 as a backpack? Technically it's a parasite and not a backpack...

Avatar image for mrjared
mrjared

444

Forum Posts

10075

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#16  Edited By mrjared

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

Avatar image for lokno
Lokno

434

Forum Posts

219

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#17  Edited By Lokno

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

Jinx! We'll see who gets the credit, you may have beat me to it.

Update: Looks like I got to it first, sorry.

Avatar image for hamst3r
Hamst3r

5512

Forum Posts

7833

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 2

#18  Edited By Hamst3r

Jetpacks count as backpacks, right? In SiN Episodes: Emergence, there were jetpack troopers who would fly all over the place then explode if you shot the jetpack.

Avatar image for sign
Sign

306

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By Sign

@SaturdayNightSpecials said:

@Duffyside said:

@pornstorestiffisaid:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

I posit that the backpack should explode when shot.

Also I submitted Fear 2.

I second this motion. I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

Avatar image for bitprophet
bitprophet

3

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#20  Edited By bitprophet

Does it have to be a shooter (sort of echoing the Batman:AA question above) and does the backpack-shooting have to be a core staple of gameplay?

If "no" and "no" then I would submit the WoW:Cataclysm quest where you have to zap some orc flamethrower backpacks to take out otherwise difficult enemies. Only lasts for one quest, but does fit the concept!

Avatar image for vincenzo
Vincenzo

168

Forum Posts

423

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

#21  Edited By Vincenzo

Did we cover Brumaks in Gears 3?

Avatar image for echoecho
EchoEcho

879

Forum Posts

47

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By EchoEcho

@Sign said:

I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

So would that rule out my intention to add Halo: Reach? You can shoot the Grunts in their methane tank to cause an explosive death, but considering you can also shoot them in the face for a one-shot kill, it isn't necessarily the fastest way to kill them, unless they're either far enough away that their head is a tiny target, or they're in the process of running away from you.

Avatar image for hhap
HHAP

338

Forum Posts

3076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#23  Edited By HHAP

added Transfomers: War for Cybertron for those brute/berserk looking enemies whose weak point is their back and I also believe there is an achievement tied to it.

Avatar image for sign
Sign

306

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Sign

@EchoEcho said:

@Sign said:

I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

So would that rule out my intention to add Halo: Reach? You can shoot the Grunts in their methane tank to cause an explosive death, but considering you can also shoot them in the face for a one-shot kill, it isn't necessarily the fastest way to kill them, unless they're either far enough away that their head is a tiny target, or they're in the process of running away from you.

I am not sure, that is a good point. I was simply throwing criteria out there for discussion amongst the community. Personally I would say they would qualify and that the "easiest way to kill them" clause is more of a guideline than a hard and fast requirement.

Avatar image for deactivated-6058f06e73ee8
deactivated-6058f06e73ee8

1024

Forum Posts

75

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

There's definitely some backpack bustin' in Mass Effect 2.

Avatar image for echoecho
EchoEcho

879

Forum Posts

47

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By EchoEcho

@Sign: I went ahead and added it -- it seems to fit enough of the spirit of the idea, I think. On higher difficulty levels especially, it can be the best way to take them out when a headshot opportunity isn't presenting itself.

Avatar image for owlpen0r
OwlPen0r

25

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#27  Edited By OwlPen0r

My only contribution to this thread is that I can't believe this wasn't on the site before. Great job Jeremy.

Avatar image for battle_brocast
Battle_BroCast

12

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#28  Edited By Battle_BroCast

For sure on it acting as a guideline, but not the rule. With that in mind, is the focus entirely on the weak, explosive spot being on the back? As mentioned, the Gears series has the typical fire-spewing enemy with an explosive backpack. Highly dangerous enemy in close-quarters, as his scorcher will melt your shit. You take out his fuel backpack, and he explodes. Nice, easy, from a distance. At the same time, Gears 3 has Lambent running around, all of them with big, yellow pustules on their bodies. Gunkers shot in the bulbous area die in an explosive fashion, very quickly, if you go for the weak point. Is the focus of the page the immediacy of the kill targetting a weak point permits, or the actual explosion of the backpack, even if it's relatively superfluous (as with Halo's Grunts)?

Avatar image for mrfluke
mrfluke

6246

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#29  Edited By mrfluke

someone go add gears 2 and gears 3 and halo 3 and halo reach, im wiki banned (never had a staff followed up with me on it)

Avatar image for ajamafalous
ajamafalous

13962

Forum Posts

905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

#30  Edited By ajamafalous

I can't remember; do those big gatling enemies in RE5 die if you shoot their backpack?

Avatar image for faustyn
faustyn

659

Forum Posts

2002

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#31  Edited By faustyn

There was a guy with something explosive on his back in Borderlands, right? Or am I thinking of the zombies throwing barrels at you? hm...

Avatar image for wholefunshow
WholeFunShow

401

Forum Posts

1287

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 22

#32  Edited By WholeFunShow

Are the individual units being linked to the concept aswell? I think they should be and'll have a look when I'm at a computer.

Avatar image for ekajarmstro
ekajarmstro

451

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By ekajarmstro
Avatar image for youngfrey
YoungFrey

1363

Forum Posts

10811

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#34  Edited By YoungFrey

I'd say this should more be attached to characters than games.  But I don't think the database is set up that way. 
Avatar image for steelknight2000
steelknight2000

635

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By steelknight2000

In Warhammer: Space Marine, the orks in the flying sequence have rockets on their backs which you can shoot to blow up. That count?

Avatar image for giziant
giziant

17

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#36  Edited By giziant

Borderlands, the elite Crimson Lance dudes...

Avatar image for jump
JuMP

102

Forum Posts

497

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 4

#37  Edited By JuMP

Added MGS3 for the boss fight with "The Fury".

Avatar image for wrathofconn
wrathofconn

1511

Forum Posts

10983

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

#38  Edited By wrathofconn

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

Avatar image for emuleader
EmuLeader

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#39  Edited By EmuLeader

@EuanDewar said:

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

I don't think that counts, or all grunts would also count. You can kill them without ever hitting their back. This concept seems more like you HAVE to shoot their backpack in order to kill them.

Avatar image for wrathofconn
wrathofconn

1511

Forum Posts

10983

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

#40  Edited By wrathofconn

@EmuLeader said:

@EuanDewar said:

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

I don't think that counts, or all grunts would also count. You can kill them without ever hitting their back. This concept seems more like you HAVE to shoot their backpack in order to kill them.

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

Avatar image for emuleader
EmuLeader

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#41  Edited By EmuLeader

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

That's why I believe it should be based around enemies whose sole way of death by being shot in their backpack. I think this is a little more specific.

Avatar image for blackout62
Blackout62

2241

Forum Posts

84

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#42  Edited By Blackout62

Republic Commando, shoot a trandoshan in the backpack and it jetpacks him the hell out of there.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d7530f19fbe4
deactivated-5d7530f19fbe4

812

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

@Lokno said:

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

Jinx! We'll see who gets the credit, you may have beat me to it.

Update: Looks like I got to it first, sorry.

I'm glad other people thought of Beyond Good & Evil, too. I don't feel like adding stuff myself right now, and I wasn't sure whether or not to include it because BG&E isn't a shooter. You eventually get some ranged attack that can burst backpacks though, don't you?

Avatar image for wrathofconn
wrathofconn

1511

Forum Posts

10983

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

#44  Edited By wrathofconn

@EmuLeader said:

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

That's why I believe it should be based around enemies whose sole way of death by being shot in their backpack. I think this is a little more specific.

You can't kill El Gigante in RE4 without climbing up on his back and cutting him in a specific spot with your knife, and if the explosive part is the only thing that makes that not fit this concept, I think it's too specific. Maybe there should be a concept about enemies that need to be shot in a specific place and a concept about enemies you can blow up (whether or not the explosives are part of the enemy) but I don't think this deserves more than a section on either/both of those pages. We may not get an official ruling though, so carry on.

Avatar image for nick_verissimo
nick_verissimo

1476

Forum Posts

403

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 9

#45  Edited By nick_verissimo

@Duffyside: what about a koopa's shell? Would that count...I'm sure things could be packed in there?

Avatar image for rjayb89
rjayb89

7814

Forum Posts

9437

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

#46  Edited By rjayb89

I added Renegade Ops awhile ago. There are tanks in the game that pops their trunks (their weak point) that allows you to damage it massively.

Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#47  Edited By Duffyside

@Battle_BroCast said:

For sure on it acting as a guideline, but not the rule. With that in mind, is the focus entirely on the weak, explosive spot being on the back? As mentioned, the Gears series has the typical fire-spewing enemy with an explosive backpack. Highly dangerous enemy in close-quarters, as his scorcher will melt your shit. You take out his fuel backpack, and he explodes. Nice, easy, from a distance. At the same time, Gears 3 has Lambent running around, all of them with big, yellow pustules on their bodies. Gunkers shot in the bulbous area die in an explosive fashion, very quickly, if you go for the weak point. Is the focus of the page the immediacy of the kill targetting a weak point permits, or the actual explosion of the backpack, even if it's relatively superfluous (as with Halo's Grunts)?

Lots of people raising awesome questions, so only quoting this one at them moment as it brings up many things, but here's my take on everything brought up that I can remember.

I think we could change the page to "Hit the Backpack" instead of "Shoot the Backpack" to accommodate melee/weapon-based action games. However, in something like Arkham, if I remember correctly, as the player you're not actively aiming for Bane's backpack to take him down. You're waiting for an opening to press a button at which point a cutscene shows up, where maybe you have to mash a button, to yank out a cord or something. If it were Batman placing explosive gel on the back to take him out, I could see it counting. Or Dante in DMC slicing at the pack with his sword—the player actively aiming for the spot—then yes. But as I remember Arkham, I say no.

As for Grunts—this also ties in with the Chimerans from Resistance brought up earlier—after thinking about it for a bit I think that shooting the backpack has to be the easiest way, not one of the easiest ways, to take down an enemy. So, not "well it'd be easy to shoot the backpack, but he's facing me so a headshot is just as good." The backpack has to be the most important feature. The enemy will typically be armored and a bullet sponge, though not necessarily.

Take Vanquish, for instance. Romanovs are a fairly common enemy in the game, and they take a lot of bullets. They are heavily armored. There are four different types of Romanovs, the last of which is the club-wiedling fire-spewing version, with a big tank on its back. You can pound away at its legs and make it immobile, or go for the head to blind it, or just shoot the chest til it eventually dies, but your best bet is to aim carefully over its shoulder to make that fucker explode. And yeah, I think explosions are pretty key to the concept too. If not just explosions, maybe eruptions as well.

As for Lambent, Chimerans, etc, where the "pustules" on their backs are not truly "backpacks" but are organic material, I don't think this counts either. I think that's just a weak spot of the enemy's fictional biology and not an additional accoutrement to the enemy design. There may be a case to be made though if the "pustules" are significantly easier ways of taking down the enemy, more than a headshot or a well-placed grenade. An even better case to be made if there are multiple versions of that enemy type and one of them has these things on its back, and possibly is even somehow stronger because of it.

Koopa shells would count if 1, the turtles were walking on two legs and 2, if the shells exploded. Also, if the shells exploded those games would be fucking awesome.

Anyway, awesome to see this thread sort of take off. Thanks to Dave for tweeting about it. I feel like after 15 years I've finally contributed something non-awful to the internet and I'm now considering quitting while I'm ahead.

Avatar image for wrathofconn
wrathofconn

1511

Forum Posts

10983

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

#48  Edited By wrathofconn

@Duffyside: In Super Mario Land, the 'shells' of the enemies they replaced Koopas with turn into bombs after you jump on them. Also, Koopas have always walked on two legs. So there's that for you.

After reading your last post, I'm now positive that this concept is too specific, like I mentioned before. I like it, but the fact that it applies specifically to backpacks is kind of ridiculous when there are already pages for explosives and for enemies with a weak spot that is the easiest/only way to kill them. I'd like to think that if you'd posted this in Editing & Tools a mod would have happened by and ruled on this by now, but I could be wrong.

EDIT: Looks like people have already added games that don't fit your definition. This should be a paragraph on the 'Weak Point' page.

Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#49  Edited By Duffyside

@wrathofconn: First of all, if you actually read my entire post, I'm sorry. So so sorry that you went through that. I couldn't even be bothered to read it all.

Second, agree to disagree. I've seen so many enemies in shooters with heavy armor that have a backpack that I couldn't believe there wasn't a page for it. I don't think it's the same as shoot the weak-point, for if it is then there shouldn't be a headshot page, cuz that's just everyone's weak-point.

But if a mod agrees with you and just wants to delete this item or put it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. Just trying to help make the site more awesome.

On that note, I'll shut up now.

Avatar image for wrathofconn
wrathofconn

1511

Forum Posts

10983

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

#50  Edited By wrathofconn

@Duffyside said:

@wrathofconn: First of all, if you actually read my entire post, I'm sorry. So so sorry that you went through that. I couldn't even be bothered to read it all.

Second, agree to disagree. I've seen so many enemies in shooters with heavy armor that have a backpack that I couldn't believe there wasn't a page for it. I don't think it's the same as shoot the weak-point, for if it is then there shouldn't be a headshot page, cuz that's just everyone's weak-point.

But if a mod agrees with you and just wants to delete this item or put it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. Just trying to help make the site more awesome.

On that note, I'll shut up now.

Hey man, if I was going to disagree with you, I was definitely going to know what your reasoning was! Or you're being sarcastic, in which case I don't think I was making a big deal out of that. And it's definitely nothing personal, I do think it's an interesting thing in games. Part of my point is that I think there's a valid reason for headshots not being a separate page, because I don't think there's one for shooting an enemy in the leg to slow them down. Ideally there would be a standard for how specific concepts should be and whether there should even be a general page for something like weak points if there are going to be specific pages for everything in that category. Sadly, that's not the case and we're left to sort these things out on our own, sometimes with help from mods.

All that said, if this page persists and you end up curating it so there aren't things on it that don't fit your own description (Renegade Ops for example), then I think it will be a quality page.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.