I remember reading that if you cannot do something with a character then you cannot choose to do that thing.

For example if a character cannot be killed then you cannot choose them for claim nor can you choose them for Guilty.

However, I've just spent a while looking though the rulebook and FAQ and cannot find this mentioned anywhere. Is it correct? If so can someone please point me towards the actual wording of it?

bane2571 said:

On page 10 of the FAQ:

(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. For example, if Wildfire Assault (CORE L191) is played, which has an effect that kills characters and "cannot be saved," then a card like Bodyguard (CORE T150) that saves that character would not work. Also note that if a card cannot be saved, a player cannot even attempt to save it with a saving card or effect. Note, however, that Wildfire Assault may still be canceled, because it does not have the text "cannot be canceled." A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc. may not be chosen for that effect."

Oh, ok, I was thinking in terms of cannot as in is unable to not in terms of cannot as the word, must have skipped right over that. Thanks.

There is also the bit on immunities that says a character cannot be chosen as a target of something if they are immune to it. Such as "immune to character abilities" can never be a target of character abilities. Or characters that cannot die (such as with plots that protect nobles), I don't believe those characters can be chosen for MIL claim because they would currently have an immunity to death.

Slothgodfather said:

Interesting ktom, thank for the distinction. So if I played that Stoic Resolve or The Power of Blood, I could still choose knelt or noble characters (respectively) to fulfill a MIL claim? Since they are not "immune" they can still be targeted to attempt to resolve the claim effect?

No, a "cannot be killed" character is invisible to all effects and mechanics that kill characters.

Slothgodfather said:

I don't see what you're getting at here. Character that "cannot be killed" still cannot be chosen or targeted by anything that would kill them. That wasn't ktom's point. ktom's point was that "cannot be killed" is not an "immunity" ability (even if they basically work the same), thus an affect that removes "immunities" would not remove "cannot be killed."

Ok. I thought he was making that distinction because it applied to my example that he replied to. So in this regard, you are saying that "cannot be killed" does translate to "immunity" in that characters with "immunity" cannot be chosen by an effect they are immune to. The FAQ does expressly mentions this as "immunity" without the inclussion of "cannot be killed." It seems you are willing to trade "cannot be killed" to mean "immunity" in that case. But since it is not textually written as an "immunity" it won't get affected by "remove character immunity" effects. Do I follow you correctly now?

Slothgodfather said:

I wouldn't say that it "translates to immunity," but rather that "cannot" and an "immunity" work fundamentally the same way. That doesn't mean that "cannot be killed" is an "immunity," it just means that they basically work the same way.

While the section on immunities does mention this aspect of not being able to be targeted, so does the section on the word "cannot." So, no, it's not about being willing to trade terms, it's that both "immunity" and "cannot" are described as working this way.

From (4.3) The word "cannot":

"A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc.
may not be chosen for that effect."

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

KristoffStark said:

I seem to have overlooked that cannot section. Thanks for the clarification!

When something says "cannot be X" that means they cannot be a target to effects that do X. They also are unaffected by effects that affect more than one card.

When something is "immune to Y", that means it cannot be a target to effects that do Y. They also are unaffected by effects that affect more than one card.

Basically, when it comes to "cannot" and "immunity", they do the same thing to but are not the identified as the same.

Den of the Wolf says "Characters lose all immunities." This does not remove "cannot be killed" or "cannot be discarded".

If Den of the Wolf said "Characters lose "cannot be killed"." then that is all it removes and immunities remain on characters.

Does that make sense?

Yes, very much so.

There you go.

The point I was making is that even though the defintions of the two terms are pretty much identical, you cannot say "'cannot be killed' = 'immunity from death'." The labels matter for other purposes, even though the analysis for what happens when you try to kill a "cannot be killed" character is pretty much the same analysis as when you try to use an event on an "immune to events" character.