Does this mean damage counters cannot be placed on units or that damage counters don't resolve on units?

If a unit has damage counters on it already, when it gains cannot be damaged, do the tokens fall off?

I might be overthinking it, but thinking about damage resolution versus placement made a difference in some other LCGs…

I believe that would mean that effects that would "damage" the card result in nothing happening. This would include damage from combat icons and any effect that uses the term "damage." I do not think that it would stop any and all ways to place damage tokens, just most ways.

To add to the above answer, the tokens already on the card would probably stay on the card if it gain this ability after it recived the damage.

The best definition so far of damaged I can find would be having a damage token placed on it- My thoughts- not entirely relevant but the wording is.

Rulebook pg 3 [Moving damage is not considered dealing damage. However, the unit that receives the moved damage is still considered to have been “damaged.” (For example, a unit with “Protect Character” can be used to absorb damage that is being moved to another Character unit.)]

So even moving damage is damaging-

The wording " Place a damage token on a unit" (doesn't exist as far as I know) might be ruled to bypass this; it does not bypass shield (pg23).

I think if they ever wanted a way to bypass these they would use "reduce damage capacity"- it's much more elegant.

Now the do the tokens stay? I would say yes, nothing explictly says they should be removed

but what if a card comes along that says something like "Action: capture target damaged unit" Could it target a unit with damage on it but that "cannot be damaged" I would argue then that there were two uses of damaged an "active" - having a damage token placed on, and a "passive" having damage tokens already on the card.

Overthinking?

So the moving damage adds another layer to the question.

If a unit has Protect Character and Cannot be damaged, can that unit redirect damage dealt to a character to itself? Does the damage not go through or would the move be illegal?

EG: Shelter from the Storm on Guardian of Peace

FiendishDevil said:

I say that the "cannot" overides the Protect Character ability.

From the rulebook,

"Any text, whether on a card or in this rulebook, that

uses the word “cannot” is absolute and cannot be

countermanded by another effect."

So I would say no, you cannot redirect damage to the Guardian because you wouldn't be able to fulfill part of the "protect character" ability in that you cannot damage the character. To use the Guardian's ability you would have to be able to damage it.

However, I think that if the "protect" ability redirected the strike it would be a different thing but the ability just allows the defender to place damage on that character instead. You are not redirecting the strike or choosing a different target for the strike you are simply placing the damage on character other than the character targeted with the strike.

I was lucky enough to get an official answer on this one pretty quickly:

Anything that tries to put a damage token on the unit fails. That includes game effects (combat icons), card effects, and damage from Protect, which would indeed keep you from using protect. Any damage already there stays.

Thanks for reaching out and getting the clarification!

Stinky how it basically renders Protect keyword useless.

I'm sure there's some more edge cases that might be problematic, but using this as an example will make it much easier to determine the best ruling.