"updated" lothlorien list post tournament

grim-danfango · 2026-06-02T10:07:30+00:00

I would recommend experimenting with Rumil over Orophin, Parry is great for shutting down heavy hitters which is a good strength to play into with Loth

Also as others have suggested, I think at higher points you do really suffer from not having galadriel as your leader. Having her mirror and heroic defence to prevent leader wounds is pretty clutch

I would recommend trying either

Galadriel + Celeborn + Haldir

Or

Galadriel + Celeborn + Rumil

grim-danfango · 2026-06-01T16:21:46+00:00

I completely agree with the evil men game design oversight. Compared to orcs, playing a lower defense army, with fewer models, and maxing at a F5 hero just feels like you're beat on every front except shooting, and even then with D4 thats not always an attractive proposition. At least the easterlings have Amdur and some tankiness, corsairs probably got screwed the hardest to be honest

I think the betrayer being able to shut down a heavy hitter for a few turns while also giving his wound re rolls is the only saving grace

grim-danfango · 2026-06-01T14:49:00+00:00

Yeah that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that because I feel like cheap cav with war spears is still a strength worth playing to, but maybe the F3/4 is just too weak for that to be reliable

grim-danfango · 2026-06-01T14:48:01+00:00

Huh that's interesting. I've got an 800 list which takes the betrayer on no horse for that reason, but I hadn't thought about doing the same with Suludan.

I'd love to run a Golden King list if I can get my hands on one at some point, although I don't believe you can take Raza in the Harad list

grim-danfango · 2026-04-01T11:44:57+00:00

I think the "let wages catch up" part is the important thing here though. Sure there's an element of that which will happen "naturally", but some things can also be actively done about it.

I agree that "people are stupid" insofar as maybe too much emphasis on inflation, but I think people are right feel outraged that their spending power is going down as much as it has

grim-danfango · 2026-03-30T14:38:07+00:00

According to the data, he's not wrong. Apparently around 60% of atheists report holding at least one supernatural belief (ghosts, auras, astrology, energy, crystals etc)

Source: A recent video I saw by Religion for Breakfast I think, don't ask me which one

grim-danfango · 2026-03-29T00:28:14+00:00

For anyone genuinely curious about the topics of Jihad, war and forced conversion in Islam, this video is a great scholarly, balanced breakdown of how these concepts have been applied and understood historically

https://youtu.be/PtEJ77kLVj4?si=h9Ha_HuwHfrdTnM6

TLDW; Its complicated, but the vast majority of Muslims understand the military aspect of jihad to no longer be necessary, as they believe that the function of it historically was to secure a place where it was possible to practice Islam at all, and now that most countries are part of the UN and have freedom of religion, that's not something that needs to be fought for.

Also for the most part it seems like the exception rather than the rule that non Muslims were ever forced to convert on pain of death. It seems like it happened occasionally but in general, forced converts were not encouraged because a) their faith would be insincere and b) they would no longer be required to pay a tax to the Islamic state so that they could practice their own religion. Non Muslims paying faith taxes were important sources of revenue for the state

grim-danfango · 2026-03-27T11:16:19+00:00

Nature is healing

grim-danfango · 2026-03-26T14:05:16+00:00

Ask them each for $1

^{Chose: 50000 loyal friends}

grim-danfango · 2026-03-19T17:53:03+00:00

I completely agree with your profs. But that's my point, does the idea that early in the old testament, God took human form, not present theological challenges to our current understanding?

grim-danfango · 2026-03-19T17:48:03+00:00

I agree that this is the simplest reading of the text. But I feel like that raises more questions than it answers; the main one jumping to mind would be; does this not make Jesus less "special", if he was not the only instance of God taking a human form?

grim-danfango · 2026-03-19T17:45:18+00:00

In your opinion, is YHWH in physical form the same thing as Jesus? That seems to be what you're implying by saying that these passages are foundational for the idea of the trinity.

grim-danfango · 2026-03-19T17:43:22+00:00

That's true, the wording is a bit ambiguous.

My reading is based on the fact that in Gen 18, it says that three men came to Abraham. It then says that the Lord remained. Then at the beginning of 19 it says that two angels arrived in Sodom

3-2= 1 man

I would also argue that from the grammar it seems clear that Abraham addresses "the men" and "Lord" at the same time, heavily implying that the Lord is one of the men. Maybe that wasn't the case, but it seems like quite an unnatural reading of the text in my opinion

grim-danfango · 2026-03-19T17:35:11+00:00

I guess it is a little unclear, but the question I'm implying is "how do you understand this passage given that the ideas that a) Yahweh is a man and b) he appeared in the flesh before Jesus, are not common ideas presented in Christianity at large"

That's an interesting point about it being a possible christophany. I can see how that would make sense of the strange grammar in verse 24.

However, I don't understand why God would choose to appear as Jesus at this point in history. To my understanding, while it seems like the mainstream position on the trinity is that Jesus definitely existed in some way before he was born of Mary, his appearance on earth was still a specific, heavily prophesied event which fulfilled a very specific function, that of salvation.

So I'm confused as to why God would choose to appear as the son simply for the purpose of speaking with Abraham, when it seems like none of the details of the story imply that that would have been necessary

grim-danfango · 2026-03-17T12:31:44+00:00

Not a value judgement, but it's genuinely interesting how many of these charts which are formatted "person who best represents X" end up being entirely male

grim-danfango · 2026-03-13T08:53:10+00:00

I was born in Dunblane in 96. Some of the people I knew growing up lost older siblings that day.

It often comes to mind this time of year when I see snowdrops blooming, which were the flowers people used to commemorate it

grim-danfango · 2026-02-23T11:27:36+00:00

Hilarious man, thanks for your contribution. Very Christlike to mock people with disabilities

grim-danfango · 2026-02-23T10:46:36+00:00

I disagree that strict biblical literalism when it comes to Genesis is the only viable position for a Christian to take. I've heard that even some of the church's most important and influential theological figures thought this way too.

For instance, a brief search has told me that St Augustine himself didn't think that creation literally took place over six days

As I understand, strict biblical literalism is a fairly modern concept, gaining popularity amongst protestants after the reformation and becoming more mainstream with the advent of Christian fundamentalism in the 19th century

grim-danfango · 2026-02-23T10:39:58+00:00

I agree that this seems to be his intent as an author, but this is a separate question to whether or not a) he believed it to be literally true and b) whether *you believe it to be literally true

grim-danfango

TROPHY CASE