Bay 12 Games Forum

Think the question was more "where'd she come from" (as well as not-so-subtle ribbing(ha!) about the whole insect thing), than her name.

... I just (mostly) finished collecting the combined PMs sent by my team during this game. Including extra stuff, like sigs and reply buttons in the PM box and whatnot, since the game began in april, we managed to bounce over 200k words back and forth. 550 pages just stick into Libreoffice. Not including those, it still probably broke 150k.

Apparently the answer to "How to win a Dominions 4 disciple game" is "Co-write a novel".

That seems nice - is MP still dominated by SC? Anything op? Might pay up just to be in another mp game with ya all.

SCs are still very prevalent in MP, from what I've seen, but there's been quite a few changes that seriously curtail their power. The luck change* alone was enough to do serious damage to SC staying power, heh. Number of other small changes like that make SC critters considerably easier to counter. Still quite powerful, as is appropriate for the resource investment involved, but now more a tool instead of the tool.

Honestly, balance in general... seems a bit better than in D3? I haven't really played either, especially in multiplayer, enough to say that with any degree of surety, but it feels that way.

Incidentally, you might want to chill and wait for another sale (and yes, there's been sales! It's amazing.) if the cost is worrisome.

Though re: temporary gems, I think those might have actually increased SC -- and almost definitely battlecaster -- power. Gemgens were sexy, but they were a logistic bottleneck and generally too expensive to have out in the field. Temp gem items in D4 are usually pretty cheap, and handing out a handful to make sure you have battlefield-wide spells going off in each and every battle is damned amazing.

*Is now a 75% chance to survive a killing blow, and doesn't work on undead or lifeless critters at all -- tartarians can get buggered

Well, you could check with a doctor...

... or give it another couple days. Fairly common for stuff to take a solid week to walk off.

Just... make sure you're drinking lots of water. If you haven't been, already. Always see people* that's sick say, "I know, I know," and then not drink their goddamn water.

And make sure it's water. Other stuff isn't as good when y'sick.

*Including me, fairly often. Is pain in arse to keep chugging liquids when sick, but need to, you do.

In some of those verses I interpret it as man the race not man the gender

... do you have any reason to?

More generally, anyone know if the words used in the original hebrew would make things more clear? There is quite a lot of things in the biblical texts which lose bits of meaning when translated into english.

It really doesn't matter which translation you use.

... not a single solitary one of those specified female homosexual relations as unnatural. They just stated some variation of "unnatural" with no further explanation, which leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation. Some did specify male homosexual relations as a problem. Given the difference, I'd expect that to mean they're talking about different things. Otherwise there would be no need to specifically reference male homosexuality.

And beyond that particular verse, the vast majority (not exactly saying much, to be fair, when there's something like six or seven mentions in the entire text) of references to homosexuality are very specifically in regards to male, and generally even more specifically male prostitution.

How is this discussion even occurring!

Because it's not as straightforward as you're saying. Likewise doesn't imply that males were also indulging in homosexuality as the women were -- likewise just states they were also engaging in unnatural acts, for which homosexuality is mentioned only in reference to men.

Interesting -- some of those actually have different translations than more broad ones.

It's good to know, by your text, female homosexuality's alright. It's something.

Quote from: Cheeetar on September 22, 2014, 08:14:13 pm

Okay- what about two infertile dudes boning each other? They're taking themselves out of the fertile population, after all.

They are having sex outside of marriage so that's not right

They would be alright to marry and then bone, though, if the reasoning you proposed for why infertile couples marrying is acceptable (despite not furthering the reproductive mandate of God) is extended logically. Ninja'd by Chee, but eh.

The saying it's not a religion is part of my belief, that's what they preach at my church therefore it's part of my Christian belief an in context of the thread

Clarifying that initially would probably have been a good idea. There's a tremendous difference in stating that christianity is not a religion and stating that your local doctrine states that christianity is not a religion for <reasons>. The former pretty much guarantees an incredulous or hostile response, the latter, considerably less so.

And desc... I get why you ranted, but this is probably not really the place for it, or at least not that verbosely. Overt hostility doesn't help much, and there's people hanging around that seem genuinely interested in hearing bits about christian doctrine as opposed to anti-religion rant X^5.