Sorry for this newbie question...

I have 6 characters in play and 3 of them are noble. Then my opponen play Wildfire Assault and I play The Power of Blood.

Can I choose my 3 non-noble characters and in this way "save" them because I can´t kill the noble ones? (The passive effect resolves before the "when revealed")

(3.15) Targetting and Immunity
A card cannot be chosen as a target of effects to which it is immune.

(4.3) The word "cannot"
If an effect has the word "cannot" in its description, then it is an absolute: That effect may not be overridden by other effects.
A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc. may not be chosen for that effect.

Wildfire Assault

When revealed, each player chooses up to 3 of his or her characters. All characters not chosen are killed (cannot be saved).

The Power of Blood
Noble characters cannot be killed.

Just to nitpick on the terminology a bit here:

- Power of Blood is not considered a "passive" plot that "resolves" first. It is a "constant" or "continuous" plot that is active from the moment the plot card becomes the player's revealed plot card. Nothing initiates, so it is not the same as a passive effect. In fact, in the scenario described, it is Wildfire that would be the passive plot effect - the "choose 3, then kill" effect initiates when the play restrictions ("when revealed") are met.

- "Cannot be killed" looks a lot like immunity, but it is not really the same thing. It's probably more a distinction of the label than as a practical difference between how "cannot" and "immune" actually function in a game, but there is a distinction.

All that anal retentiveness aside, I think I see what is at the heart of your question. In your "3 Noble, 3 other" scenario with Wildfire, it is easy to think of the characters other than the three specified by the plot as being chosen to die, which would be illegal by the rules of the game preventing "cannot be killed" character from being chosen as the target of killing effects. It's a little tricky, but the only characters that the plot chooses are (up to) 3 characters who will NOT die. In essence, you choose 3 characters to LIVE for the effect and the rest are just killed without being chosen (like Valar Morghulis).

So it is perfectly legal to choose your 3 non-Nobles to live because that is not actually the same thing as choosing your 3 Nobles to die. So, when "all characters not chosen are killed," the CBK makes the killing effect essentially roll right off of the Nobles, leaving you with all 6 characters.

Thanks for the clarification about terms.

And for the rules question... xD

I am aware that these are ancient posts. Nevertheless, I ran into a similar issue just today, so they still seem to be relevant.

At first I disagreed with ktom's analysis. However, one simple way to look at the given scenario is this: instead of having 3 noble characters and three non-noble, imagine that we have 4 noble characters and nothing else. Clearly, 3 characters must still be chosen, and one character must be 'killed'. The rules of the game would simply be broken unless Wildfire Assault allows us to let 'die' characters that 'cannot be killed'.

Section 4.3 of Rules Clarification and Enhancement currently states that a character that cannot be killed may not be chosen for an effect that would kill them. However, Wildfire Assault's wording is such that we choose those who do NOT die, and whatever remains is killed.

Paragon.RG said:

btw: Since Wildfire reads "chooses up to 3 of his or her characters...", you actually could get away with deciding not to choose any characters at all.

Point being, as you say, that since you are not dealing with a "choose and kill" effect here, there are no limits on your choices based on "cannot be killed."

ktom said:

Thanks for that, I was actually about to post a question about not choosing anyone during a "chooses up to" situation and whether it was legal.

Paragon.RG said:

The first rule of the Rules board is, you don't disagree with ktom's analysis. The second rule of the Rules board is...yeah, I know, quoting 12 years old movies over and over again is utterly lame.

Ratatoskr said:

Rule #8 - If this is your first night on the rules board, you have to argue.

Hey, like I always say: everyone should feel free to disagree with my analysis and think for themselves. That's half the fun of the game.

ktom said:

Amen, brother. Just so happens that upon reflection most of us tend to agree with your analysis when all is said and done.