Talk:Lux/@comment-37518538-20181115170117/@comment-28977071-20181126155508

This sentence, ZomsX:

"She doesn't have as much utility as other support champions so if you're using her as a support it should be because of her damage,"..

..is prolly what made XXFeatherPawXx respond, and why I cannot agree with either. I can see a formulated implication in there that doesn't seem to be valid. I could not resist to do a fancy disproof, feel free to skip the next technobabble paragraph:

Your sentence expects utility to be somehow linearly measurable (btw I disagree about linearity part too, matchups and counters make things highly non-linear), so be it. Let's then have a set S of all "true-only" supports. According to our assumption, S is a well-ordered finite set with respect to the amount of champ's utility. Hence either the set is empty or we can choose the minimum element min{ S}. Then there cannot exist another element of S, cuz in such case the two'd be comparable and according to your claim min{ S} should be a support because of dmg, not utility. So an element of S does not belong into S, a contradiction. This way we inevitably arrive to an awkward conclusion |S| ≤ 1, there can be only the one true support..

In your other post you claim that "if you compare her with other supports she does indeed lack utility..", however this isn't related to the logical problem with the above-mentioned sentence, that people were imo responding to. Also, noone before you said that "you play her as a support only for her utility". Building is actually fine even on pure-utility supports, if their utility scales with it. It's actually very hard to avoid that. CDR is okay even more as it almost always increases utility. Only is something that utility hasn't ever been scaling with so far.

All in all, your other post sounds ok, if separated, but imho it does not truly answer issues raised in the former two posts..