Awilix Info

Well it does make it easier to poke fun at your more useless comments you post everyonce in a while.

Also no, i am not calling your comment snarky. Your useless, obvious and could be considerd offensive but what my comment was about is that I could make an extremely snarky comment on it.

Yes, you are god, and what you deem useless is the word of god.

I was ATTEMPTING to talk about the kit, but all anyone is talking about is the ******** sexualization.

No, I'm talking about the kit!

So far what I take from her is that she's like a mix of Nemesis and Loki. Not specifically since Awilix' kit is more specific and tuned to your enemy's positioning (2,3,4) but more like how she's a hybrid ability-based/auto-attack god. More ability based than Nemesis but more auto-attacked based than Loki. However I'd safely say that she's for the most part ability based since her burst is pretty good.

Warrior Tabi + Jotunn's Wrath + The Executioner + magi's blessing + crit/defense/pen seems to be working out great for me. But we'll have to see how others itemize her as well.

I AM trying.

Can't wait to see how she does in joust and arena. She'll be a fun one, what with her insta-mount and all.

I'ma give her something like Hydra's Lament or Jotunn's Wrath.

Bravo, you sunk to insults and accusations. Good to know that that is what you end upresorting to.

The reason your comment was useless was because you were simply confirming what has been said on this thread a ****tilion times, the kit is good was all your comment said and that is DISREGARDING the part that could be considerd offesive.

It's not useless because i consider my self some divine being, it's useless because it said something that was saod a ****tillion times.

You were not TRYING to talk about the kit as much as you are trying to imply with this comment.

---

Insults, emotions and accusation used for argueing... Im pretty sure we had a thread talking about how that is NOT how you should argue not to long ago...

Your argument about Athena not needing armor is so completely idiotic I had to rewrite this multiple times to stop myself FROM RANTING.

Athena is the most intelligent god in the Greek pantheon. The only reason why Athena would be wearing armor is to protect herself, not just as a fashion statement. She's almost always shown wearing at least a helmet and a breastplate. If Athena DIDN'T need armor, she'd not wear any, because armor impedes movement. Therefore, the very idea of a boob plate is idiotic, since it doesn't protect you, looks stupid, and only encumbers movement.

Athena can kick *** while wearing that? Perhaps. But why would the goddess of strategy, tactics, wisdom, and intelligence wear some completely useless "armor?" Which is why the boob plate is unrealistic and stupid and goes against the lore. And for ****'S SAKE, HOW CAN YOU COMPARE A CUIRASS THAT PROTECTS YOUR ENTIRE TORSO TO A ****ING METAL BRA THAT COVERS ONLY YOUR BREASTS?

"Armor doesn't work?" Doesn't change how that Breastsplate she's wearing would only encumber her, as well as the problem of the goddess of WISDOM wearing a useless item. Also, armor DOES work, as seen in the case of Ajax, Achilles, Diomedes, etc, fighting gods with them and winning. If armor wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't get so much emphasis in mythology.

"Athena fights in a dress?"





Yes, she does, just like how that hoplite fights in a skirt.

Total War is a ****ing VIDEO GAME. And you're citing that as your source? Also, Phlanxes DID wear armor, not the "little to no armor" you said. Seriously, I have to ask: Did you get all of your "facts" from video games and Hollywood?

Also, you CAN debate creativity! Why do you think so many fantasy works strive for realism? Why do you think "unrealistic" is a common complaint in fiction?

It's something called suspension of disbelief in creative works. You're obviously not familiar with it.

Basically, in fantasy, we can accept, well, fantastic concepts. Like in Harry Potter, the world is immersive despite it having magic and stuff, because the concept of magic doesn't break our suspension of disbelief.

Now, spoiler alert: What if, instead of destroying the Horcruxes, Harry just used the Power of Love to instakill Voldemort with one spell? It would be completely unrealistic, and ignores the previously established rules of the books.

The point is, to make a believable work of fiction, you need to create a realistic, immersive world. And above all, it has to be consistent. If something you do is so out of left field, or contradictory to the rules you have established, then you break that suspension of disbelief, damaging it as a good work of fiction.

Yeah, I'm ranting. The point is, yes, it is "realistic" to kill a lion with your bare hands, or to lift up the sky for a few seconds, because it fits in with the framework that the mythos establishes, without breaking the suspension of disbelief. Of course it's "unrealistic" compared to real life, but EVERYTHING that isn't real life is unrealistic, by definition.

The point is, it's fine to have impossibly beautiful and handsome gods and goddesses. It's fine to have magical lightning bolts and impossibly heavy hammers and for love spells and giant monsters to exist. It's not fine for Hera to create a "fidelity" spell or for Ragnarok to NOT come to pass, because these events go against the combined rules of the narrative and break the flow of the overall story, and ending the suspension of disbelief.

It's okay to have a beautiful goddess dressed like all the other gods. It's completely unrealistic to have a goddess known for her intelligence to fight in a completely worthless "armor." Just like how dressing Voldemort in a Speedo would be unrealistic, or if the Balrog wore boob plates, as well.

/rant

She has even a little bit more armor in Smite than in reality.

Yeah, two of the two main points we follow in my book club (yeah,laugh w/e) is that

1. Does the story follow the rules set by the author (aka is it logical throughout the whole story?)

2. Does the story convey the setting in a correct and realistic way? (e.g. if the author is trying to make the setting medieval Spain, do they make sure things like hygiene, the religion, and major historical points match up with its real life counterpart?)

The one on the left is Pallas Athena. The one in the middle is I have no ****ing clue, looks like an illustration. And the one on the right has LESS armor, because even the statue on the left covers the upper torso.





Sometimes, Athena is shown without full armor, to show that it's a time of peace.





But the biggest, most famous (and lost) statue of them all wears a full breastplate.



But the majority of depictions (as in, not the same statue from different angles or anything)



show Athena



in armor.



What you don't see here is Nike in her hand. Which symbolizes a victory, aka a time of peace.

That's hardly a breastplate.