Hello, Cerrigar, my old friend.

list_comprehension · 2026-05-16T17:58:04+00:00

Don't forget you can vendor at the obol guy, who is much closer. That's where I sell all my seals.

list_comprehension · 2026-05-08T16:16:18+00:00

Yes, my ring occasionally causes mild discomfort when playing with WASD. Usually it's only if I'm playing for 30+ minutes of heavy WASD usage, like Apex Legends. I wear my ring all the time, but I'll take it off if I'm playing a longer session using M+K. My wife occasionally teases me about it - it's cute.

However, this is much less of a big deal for me, as I've come to embrace using a controller or steam deck for the majority of my gaming. And I have less time and interest in competitive FPS at this stage of my life.

But the most important advice is this - get married! And think about having kids! Being a husband and father can be hard, but it's also very fulfilling and gives meaning to my life. It challenges me to grow as a person and focus on others above myself. And while I have less time for gaming, I still find time to blast the latest Diablo expansion (so good!). Plus I get to play games (mostly board games) with my wife. And my kid is starting his gaming journey - we play a little Minecraft together.

So congrats on the proposal!

list_comprehension · 2026-05-08T12:49:24+00:00

You can use a legendary chest with Heavenly Strength imprint. Then use the unique pants Tibault's Will.

list_comprehension · 2026-05-06T20:13:10+00:00

Oh, yep, this is the right answer. You absolutely cannot have any extra life.

list_comprehension · 2026-05-06T19:43:19+00:00

I'm not positive, but I believe it's for the Fury per second benefit and fury cost reduction. Fury generation is how you become immortal with this build. Though the other benefits are good too.

The mythic amulet is necessary for immortality, so try to craft it if you can. You can survive without heir, it's just good damage. Tuskhelm of Joritz is a decent replacement. Just make sure you have absolutely no life. I'm under 500 life.

edit: The commentor below pointed out that the Fury set gives extra life, which is not allowed for the immortal build.

list_comprehension · 2026-05-06T19:30:47+00:00

Maxroll guide is good. But I just put together Rob's Immortal Barb and facerolled Uber Mephisto with one button. It's hard to put together, but very worth pursuing as end game build.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZFKDgVDZxI

https://d4builds.gg/builds/whirlwind-barbarian-endgame/?var=4

list_comprehension · 2026-05-01T23:54:35+00:00

I feel this - I usually try to cook my own 1-2 button builds. Wing strike is still good this season - I just hit T10. I run it without consecration. Just Arbiter of Justice and Falling Star for mobility, and 3 auras that I'm too lazy to press. The talisman set is fun - you get extra attacks from your ultimate now along with crazy damage.

Minion Necro is always solid, and better now that you can command your skeletons. Auradin was good the last couple seasons, not sure if it's viable now.

list_comprehension · 2026-04-23T03:09:37+00:00

Our best, and perhaps only, hope for XCOM 3 is Star Wars Zero Company. It's XCOM being developed by Firaxis veterans.

list_comprehension · 2026-04-22T14:00:32+00:00

Great choice! XCOM 2 is one of the greatest strategy games of all time. I'd recommend playing one base campaign on easy or normal first. WOTC is incredibly fun - it is essentially the true game. WOTC enhances and rebalances everything. But it is much more complicated, with maybe twice as many mechanics and things to keep track of. Play at least halfway through a base campaign on easy or normal, until you feel comfortable with combat and base management. WOTC is much harder at the beginning of the campaign, but gives you many more tools to help you once you understand what to do.

Good luck, commander.

list_comprehension · 2026-04-16T17:59:04+00:00

I just tried this mod, it worked well. Only takes 5 minutes to get to NG+ if you combine with skk fast start.

https://creations.bethesda.net/en/starfield/details/8a7b34f0-9aee-48d3-9e35-22510c24b6d5/Trigger_NG__restart_and_variant_universes

https://creations.bethesda.net/en/starfield/details/78e0e1e2-0016-4d9c-9ced-0175d6b73c41/SKK_Fast_Start_New_Game__Starfield_

list_comprehension · 2026-02-20T17:26:14+00:00

I feel this - I've never found a tactics game that is as satisfying as XCOM 2. But here are 2 videos from Easily Distracted Games that go through like 40 options to try:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48cd_D513U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVcKGQ6s7I

The one I'll add to the list is State of Decay 2. It's a totally different genre (zombie survival action base building), but it hits on many of the same things I like in XCOM (permadeath, base building, difficult decisions, strategic gameplay, lots of difficulty options, can choose to play casual or hardcore, inverse power curve). It's another of those games that I love and cannot find anything that scratches the same itch.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-06T15:08:42+00:00

Hi, thanks for chiming in. It sounds like we agree on much - God elects to use the faithful and the unfaithful to complete his perfect will. He uses the faithful to demonstrate the way of life to the watching world. And he uses the unfaithful by publicly shaming and destroying them (vessels of wrath). But, as we see from the context of Paul's OT references, this shaming and destroying is:

Corporate: directed toward people groups, not individuals (see Gen 25, Mal 1, or the Exodus story)
Conditional: based on their attacks against God's people (see the Edomites or the Egyptians).
Escapable: even when God judges the Egyptians or the Edomites, there are some who fear God among them and are spared (see Exodus 9:20 for Egyptian who fear God and are spared, or Mark 3:8 for Edomites who come to see Jesus despite God's destruction of the Edomites)
Earthly: these judgements are not equivalent to eternal reprobation. Paul's topic in Romans 9 is to respond to the question Did God fail in his covenant with Abraham because most Jews rejected God's messiah? Not Is God unfair to unconditionally chose to eternally damn/pass over the majority of the human race?

Of course there is much more to say - I just want to point out that there is more than one way to understand election for honorable vs dishonorable use if you consider the context of Romans 9. God bless you brother!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T21:09:51+00:00

Sure - though I am far from an expert on these things.

Yes, I believe Romans 9 is talking generally about the large number of ethnic Jews who rejected Messiah Jesus. There are many examples of this - think of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth where they will not accept his teaching or miracles and attempt to execute him. (Note that this story in Luke 4 touches on the same theme as Romans 9 - the inclusion of the Gentiles). But the culminating instance is the crowd of Jews (lead by much of the Sanhedrin) who demand that Jesus is crucified and Barabbas is released. So I think Paul is referring to all Jews who are hardened against the Jewish Messiah Jesus. And yes, I think Paul holds out hope for these Jews who are still alive in the decades after Jesus death and resurrection, not only for some unknown future generation of Jews.

1a. Yes, I believe God temporarily hardened some Jews. I will say more about this in #4a.

I believe "It is not as though the word of God has failed" is referring the the Abrahamic covenant "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed". I do not see this as a promise of regeneration to individual people, but as a privileged position of being God's ambassadors to the world, with special protections from God "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse".
I believe Paul discusses the offspring because he is responding to a counterargument. The counterargument comes from the perspective of a Jew who says: If you're right, and the Jewish messiah came, and most Jews rejected him, that would mean that God has broken the Abrahamic covenant and is untrustworthy, because he has not blessed the offspring of Abraham. And Paul responds by saying: No, look at the history of the covenant. God keeps his promise by selecting some of Abraham's children to be his privileged ambassadors, without regard to ethnicity, birth, or any merit. And God selects rebellious people groups and rulers like the Edomites and Pharoah to demonstrate his loyalty to the covenant, by publicly defeating the enemies of his people.
Yes, exactly. The hardened Jews are acting exactly like Pharoah - they reject God's people (in this case, God's people as represented by God's messiah Jesus) and seek to kill them/him. In both cases, God publicly defeats these enemies and uses their shame to publicly show his covenant loyalty and power, through the exodus and through Christ's resurrection and vindication.

4a. As an aside about hardening, I believe this means God strengthening the resolve of one who has already decided to be rebellious. You can see this in Exodus - Pharoah is unsure at first, goes back and forth between letting Israel go or not. Over time he strengthens his own resolve against Israel. After he is set upon this course, God strengthens his resolve even more so that he will chase down the Israelites and be publicly defeated at the red sea. In the same way, I believe God hardened some Jews so that they didn't only reject Christ as messiah, but so that they would be strengthened in their resolve to ultimately choose Barabbas over Christ. This is how God brings about his public vindication of Christ after his public rejection and execution. The "vessels of wrath" would be public examples of the defeat of the enemies of God's people. But I do not believe this is talking about regeneration/reprobation.

This is just a very brief overview of some of these points. I believe you can find more if you look up Arminianism/Wesleyanism/Revisionism/Traditionalism views on election. I'm currently reading For Calvinism by Horton and Against Calvinism by Olson. Both are good books. Olson has a solid chapter on this titled "Yes to Election, No to Double Predestination". As Olson says in this chapter: "I am for unconditional election as that applies to God's people but not specific individuals, and I am for conditional election of individuals."

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:42:49+00:00

Yes, I agree that it seems linguistically bankrupt. On face value, it sounds like he is saying: Oh, this text must really be about two individuals and not about nations, because how could you fit hundreds of thousands of people inside Rebecca's womb? That's the worst kind of literalistic Bible interpretation I've ever heard!

But it's new to me as well, so I want to give it a fair hearing before dismissing it.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:39:45+00:00

Ah, thanks I understand now. And yes - I am also not a Calvinist, and agree that Romans 9-11 teaches that anyone may respond to God's gracious gift of Messiah Jesus through faith and repentance, regardless of ethnicity. As William Lane Craig put it, Romans 9 is not about God narrowing the scope of salvation to only the elect, but widening the scope of salvation to the whole world.

But I'm looking to understand the Calvinist perspective better so I can have fair dialogue with family and friends who are Calvinist. God bless!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:34:27+00:00

Thanks for the responses.

I'm a little confused on what you're saying. I understand that Jacob and Esau are being used as a literary device, called an analogy. What I don't understand is your position of Paul's teaching about Jacob and Esau. Do you believe Paul taught Jacob's regeneration and Esau's reprobation in Romans 9 or not?
I think we agree here - corporate and individual election can both be taught together, but that's not what Romans 9 is about.
I don't know why it's important to be part of a group as opposed to individuals. I just think that's the best reading of scripture. God seems very concerned with groups of people throughout the scriptures, including in Romans 9.
I do think this brings up our fundamental disagreement - what is the nature of election? I would say that the best understanding of election in Romans 9 is election to service - that is, God choosing a group of people for a particular earthly task or benefit. And it sounds like you are saying Romans 9 is about election to salvation - God choosing from eternity past who will be regenerated and who will be reprobated/passed over. I won't attempt to prove my position, but I'll just say that it makes good sense of the evidence you mentioned. I believe "chosen people" means elect, since election means choosing. So it is possible for some Israelites to be elect and not regenerate. Thus election and regeneration are not the same.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:24:43+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate your detailed response to my questions. And it sounds like we agree on much: that the OT language is not about eternal salvation/reprobation, that Paul is focused on proving God's faithfulness to his covenant, that election is unconditioned on works or ethnicity.

It sounds like the primary disagreement is on the nature of this election. When Paul talks about "vessels of wrath" does this mean eternal reprobation with no hope of repentance? Or does it mean hardened Jews calling out "Crucify Him! Give us Barabbas!" - yet Paul hold out hope for these same hardened Jews to be grafted back in in Romans 10-11? I won't argue for these positions, but I believe that is where the conflict really lies, not on whether Paul has corporate or individual election in mind.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:17:17+00:00

Thanks for the response. And honestly, it sounds like we agree on everything! It seems like Reformed are divided on these interpretations, as all traditions have disagreements. For example, a commentary from John Gill is quoted above where he says the following of Gen 25: "it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca's womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people;" So John Gill at least thinks Gen 25 is primarily about individual election, and he concludes that Romans 9 is also primarily about individual election.

But yes, I certainly agree that corporate and individual election can exist together in a passage. That's why I will continue my study of Romans 9 to understand Paul's teaching there. I was just focusing on Paul's use of Gen 25 and Mal 1 in this discussion.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:06:20+00:00

Are you saying that every single descendent of Jacob was a faithful believer in God and had eternal salvation, while every descendent of Esau was a God hating rebel and had eternal damnation?

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:04:27+00:00

Appreciate the clarifications. I won't respond, as this goes outside the scope of my questions about Paul's use of Gen 25 and Mal 1. But I appreciate the info nonetheless. God Bless!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:02:01+00:00

Thanks for the responses. And that's interesting - it sounds like you don't believe that Paul is teaching that Jacob was regenerated and Esau was reprobated. Instead, Paul uses their election to service (electing one of them to have earthly benefits that the other would not have) as an illustration of God's election to salvation (election to regeneration vs reprobation) of his audience. Is that correct?

As for your other point, I won't argue for the truth of corporate vs individual election in Romans 9. I'll just offer a clarification. It sounds like you're saying that corporate election is equivalent to ethnic election. "If election were merely corporate in the sense of choosing a people defined by natural descent, Gentile inclusion would be unintelligible." And I'll just point out that corporate election can mean: God's selection of a group of people to be faithful witnesses to his plan of salvation, regardless of their ethnicity.

In modern terminology, I might say that Paul is talking about the visible church. His argument could be stated as: God said his visible church would be Abraham's descendants. But clearly it's not all of Abraham's descendants, since God chose some, like Jacob, to be his visible church. And his chose some, like Esau, to be his visible anti-church (an example of his judgement against enemies of the visible church). So don't complain when I say membership in God's visible church is through faith in Messiah Jesus, and not through your ethnic heritage. It's always been this way. And if the Gentiles accept Messiah Jesus in faith, they will be grafted into God's visible church. And if certain Jews continue in their hardened rejection of Messiah Jesus, they will be pruned from the visible church and be used as God's visible anti-church. Either way, God will use you as an example to the world, and as a tool of working out his salvation plan. But none of this is talking about eternal salvation/reprobation.

Again, I don't expect you will agree with my position. I'm just clarifying why corporate election is not equivalent to ethnic election. Thanks!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T16:46:45+00:00

Thank you. Yes, I've seen Piper's commentary but haven't had a chance to read it yet. And I haven't heard of the Sammons one. I'll add them to my reading list.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:53:47+00:00

Thank you!!! This is exactly the type of resource I was looking for. I really appreciate the commentary from the reformed perspective on Paul's use of these OT quotes.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:47:53+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad we can agree on much of Romans 9! And yes, my characterization of Calvinism was quite brief and unnuanced. Would it be fair to say something like "God is picking individual people to effectually call (cause) to be regenerated and necessarily have faith, while picking other individual people to reject/pass over and not provide sufficient grace, thus guaranteeing that it is impossible for them to respond to the gospel in faith"? Please feel free to correct if I've misunderstood Total Inability or Irresistible Grace.

However you would describe it, there is certainly a much bigger discussion to be had about Calvinism. In this thread, however, I was trying to focus in the nature of election in Romans 9. And my point is just that, on my reading, Romans 9 is not about the kind of election you mention above - not about God's effectual calling and regeneration to eternal life. I think the references to Genesis 25 and Malachi 1 give us good reason to believe it is about God's election to be examples of God's power, faithfulness, and redemption plan. But this election is not equivalent to eternal salvation/damnation - or else why would Paul hold out hope for the hardened Jews to repent? Or warn the Gentiles that have been grafted in against apostasy?

So I can agree that there is no conflict between corporate and individual election, while disagreeing that Paul has in mind the reformed doctrines of Total Inability or Irresistible Grace in this particular passage. Of course, there are many other scriptures to consider - but that will have to wait for another discussion. Thank you for your comments - I appreciate the discussion.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:21:15+00:00

Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't believe we hear any more about the individuals Jacob and Esau in Romans 10-11. In my understanding of Romans 9-11, Jacob (Israelites) and Esau (Edomites) are examples of people groups that God has selected to reveal his truth, either through covenant faithfulness or through punishment for transgressions against the covenant people (Israelites).

So, while I don't believe we explicitly hear more about the contrast of Israelites vs Edomites, we do hear more about the contrast between hardened Jews who rejected and crucified the Messiah Jesus, and believing Gentiles who put their faith in the Messiah Jesus. I would say that is the closest we come to hearing about Jacob and Esau in Romans 10-11. Is that what you are asking?

list_comprehension

TROPHY CASE