Hard One

[Celebrimbor]

Definition of kill: to accumulate wounds until vitality is depleted, right?
Function of armor: can only take up to 1 wound during each skirmish, right?

Using the above logic, can Armor borne by any companion prevent that companion being killed from the text of Ulaire cantea, Black assassin?

[Elessar's Socks]

Definition of kill: to accumulate wounds until vitality is depleted, right?
Function of armor: can only take up to 1 wound during each skirmish, right?

Using the above logic, can Armor borne by any companion prevent that companion being killed from the text of Ulaire cantea, Black assassin?

Reducing a character's vitality to 0 is one way to kill that character, but "killed" doesn't mean to reduce a character's vitality to 0. It just means to place the character in the dead pile, with the the understanding that the character was killed.

So Armor won't prevent a companion skirmishing Cantea from being killed.

[MR. Lurtzy]

His ability says kill regardless of how much vitality the character has. Armor cannot help with that.

[TheJord]

Its like when someone gets overwhelmed. No wounds are placed, they are simply killed.

With Black Assassin, you have at least one action to stop it before it happens

[Kralik]

I would liken it to being corrupted: Adding a burden drops resistance by 1. When the ringbearer's resistance drops to 0, he/she is corrupted. However, the ring-bearer can be instantly corrupted regardless of the number of burdens (for example: Shapes Slowly Advancing). Likewise, someone can be killed regardless of wounds (different sort of example: Saved from the Fire. Yes, it does trigger threat wounds).

[Celebrimbor]

OK thanks guys.  At first I thought it all depended on the "definition" of "kill".

Anyways, now I don't have to ponder over it any more.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Definition of kill: to accumulate wounds until vitality is depleted, right?
Function of armor: can only take up to 1 wound during each skirmish, right?

Using the above logic, can Armor borne by any companion prevent that companion being killed from the text of Ulaire cantea, Black assassin?

False syllogism.

You're saying...

If A, then B (If a character has wounds equal to vitality, then he/she is killed)
A is not true (Character cannot take wounds equal to vitality, because character takes only one wound)
Therefore, B is not true (Character cannot be killed)

A syllogism actually works like this...
If A, then B
A is true
Therefore, B is true

Going by the logic you stated, you could say the following...
If I eat a whole pizza, then I will be perfectly full
I did not eat a whole pizza
I am perfectly full

But we know that being perfectly full can come from sources other than pizza.

(And yeah, I basically just repeated what everyone said. But in the terms of formal logic)


<Edited for a missing "not">~FM
No, that's the way I intended it. To demonstrate that it reaches a false conclusion.

[SomeRandomDude]

A ) B
~A
.:. ~B
INVALID

To put CG's argument it into even more logical terms. However, that's not the argument, this is.

A = B
~A
.:. ~B
VALID

Or

If and only if a person accumulates wounds until his vitality reaches 0, then he is killed.
He did not accumulate enough wounds for his vitality to reach 0.
Thus, he is not killed.
VALID (not necessarily true, a valid syllogism means the conclusion follows logically from the two premises).

Would be correct, as = means if an only if. But then, I would disagree with your original assertion that wounding to death is the only way to kill. So this really doesn't involve any logical syllogisms at all, CG, but an assertion on gameplay mechanics. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Someone just came out of logic class ready to apply what they learned.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It could really be interpreted either way. Either he's got the false first premise (and valid argument) or he constructed his argument invalidly.

[SomeRandomDude]

But since he didn't use a conditional syllogism, but a biconditional syllogism, his argument was valid. He was stating that death and wounding to death are equivalent, thus, death can only occur by wounding to death and wounding to death always causes death.

Which would make an "If and only if wounding to death, then death" statement which is a biconditional and thus the syllogism is logically valid.

Which means that this isn't a case of faulty logic at all, but simply a false premise.