Freeze the flesh

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
panotxa
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Freeze the flesh

Post by panotxa » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:22 pm

Hello!

I'd like to know what can be done with this card: Freeze the flesh.
Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if a shadow‐magic‐using character is
in his company. Return the character to the company and tap him. Target character has ‐2 mind to a minimum of 1, ‐1 prowess,
and ‐2 body. The character’s company is now overt. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow‐ magic‐using character makes a
corruption check modified by ‐4.
If I have a company with 2 shadow-magi, one dies, and at the end of turn I luckyly draw a Freeze the flesh, can I resurrect him? And if the original company merged with another one? Can one shadowmage autoressurect himself? ...

Thank you!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:13 pm

The card cannot be played at all, at least not with current card set.
Because it is "Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if a shadow‐magic‐using character is in his company."
To fulfill this condition a target should be eliminated earlier in current turn, then returned to play by hypothetical effect (directly to the shadow‐magic‐using character's company, or join it later).

Nevertheless a cards may be played after reconciling hand in End-of-Turn Phase. Reconciling takes place in End-of-Turn Phase, not at the end of turn. End of turn takes place when End-of-Turn Phase ends.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

panotxa
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by panotxa » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:04 pm

Thanks Konrad,
If the card is strictly interpretated it's not playable at all, but I imagine that it doesn't make sense to create a card that is not playable at all... I can imagine the idea behind the bad writing (the aim of the card) but if I play this card anybody can argue that is not playable at all and he'll be right... what should my next step be? Ask for a ruling/erratum to the netrep? Or forget about the card...?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:49 pm

Treat:
"Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if a shadow‐magic‐using character is
in his company. Return the character to the company and tap him."
as:
" Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character. Return the character to the shadow‐magic‐using character's company and tap him."

and agree with your play group such treatment of the card.

This would be de facto an errata. If you care about approval of some body that claims to be official, then request that body for making such errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

panotxa
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by panotxa » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:28 pm

Thanks Konrad,
Maybe the rephrasing should state that you can return the "zombi" character to the shadow-magic-using character's company only if both characters were part of the same company when the former was eliminated. What do you think?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:05 pm

Maybe.

Then:
"Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if a shadow‐magic‐using character is in his company."
should be changed to:
"Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his last company."

I think that simply changing "is" to "was" would not be enough. It would allow to return a character eliminated by a body check this turn which was at some point in the same company with shadow‐magic‐using character, but not when he has been eliminated.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

panotxa
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by panotxa » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:41 am

I would add "this turn" at the end of the sentence :) I'll play it this way and if somebody doesn't like it I'll send them to this forum :roll:
Thanks again,
Toni
-------------------------------------
EDIT: no need to add "this turn", is stated before in the sentence, sorry!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:51 pm

panotxa wrote:I would add "this turn" at the end of the sentence :)
Concise is not always strict.

"this turn" instead "in his last company" would also match a situation where a character that was eliminated by a body check in M/H phase and a shadow‐magic‐using character were in the same company, but only slightly earlier - in organization phase, not at point "when the former was eliminated".

Now I realize that my last proposal was not strict too.
"Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his last company."
also matches situation when a character has been eliminated while being imprisoned and a shadow‐magic‐using character was in his last company (some turns ago).

It also matches following situation:
A character and a shadow‐magic‐using character are in the same company when former is eliminated by body check.
Then the former is returned by Freeze the Flesh and then the former is eliminated by mean other than body check (corruption check, Pallando the Soul-keeper, The Ithil-stone).
(Another copy of) Freeze the Flesh still could be played on such character. After all he " was eliminated by a body check this turn" and "a shadow‐magic‐using character was in his last company" (and even in the same turn).

My current proposal:
"Playable on a character eliminated by a body check that was eliminated this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his company, when the character has been eliminated."

"Playable on a character eliminated by a body check" would indicate a reason for which he is currently eliminated.

P.S. Uff.. now i have a more leniency for analphabetism of ICE authors. :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Jose-san » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:54 pm

I like Konrad's proposal. I dislike the notion that cards keep any kind of "status" when they leave play.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:25 pm

Thanks for support, Jose-san.

To be clear, by:
"Playable on a character eliminated by a body check" would indicate a reason for which he is currently eliminated.
i mean, that the phrase would indicate that "a reason for which he is currently eliminated" is condition that must be fulfilled.

The proposal is meant to reflect the requirements:
panotxa wrote:Maybe the rephrasing should state that you can return the "zombi" character to the shadow-magic-using character's company only if both characters were part of the same company when the former was eliminated.
and that he has been eliminated by body check, that is requirement of original text of the card.
So it should exclude a character that was in the same company in shadow-magic-using character when has been eliminated, but has not been eliminated by body check.

Not everything may be registered by state (tapped, untapped, wounded) or by placement of a card. E.g. a reason for which a character card is currently placed in out of play pile (or in marshaling points pile of opponent) cannot be so registered.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu May 31, 2018 12:46 pm

Why is this card "playable on a character" in the first place? You need to get the card first from somewhere out of play.
Should it not be "playable on a character in your out-of-play pile", or simply "playable if a character in the shadow-magic using character's company was eliminated this turn. Return character to the company and tap him. Place this card with the character."
or stuff along these lines.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu May 31, 2018 1:30 pm

Should not be "playable on a character in your out-of-play pile", because the character may be also in opponent's MP pile.
Should not be "playable if a character in the shadow-magic using character's company was eliminated this turn. Return character to the company and tap him. Place this card with the character." if the character has to be a character eliminated by body check.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 12:46 pm
You need to get the card first from somewhere out of play.
You do not need to do. The card is placed in that or other pile. Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent also targets otherwise illegal target ("stored" and "eliminated" unambiguously indicates on a card not in play, overriding a general rules).

If text of a card reflects an intentions of its author what is the problem?
(original text makes the card impossible to play under any known circumstances, so author's intentions have been reconstructed)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu May 31, 2018 3:25 pm

or stuff along these lines.
that includes adding MP pile in the reference, and a body check.

MP pile and Out-of-play are direct pinpoints, so that works (same for NsANsP), but right now there's nothing. As we're discussing in the Out of Play proposal, the character could be back in your cardbinder.
If text of a card reflects an intentions of its author what is the problem?
Is that really you Konrad?
I believe his account has been hacked :lol:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu May 31, 2018 4:48 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 3:25 pm
MP pile and Out-of-play are direct pinpoints, so that works (same for NsANsP), but right now there's nothing.
I do not understand.
Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent does not mention a MP pile. "Stored" implies a place where target item is placed.
"Eliminated" also implies a place where target character is placed.

"playable if a character in the shadow-magic using character's company was eliminated this turn by body check. Return character to the company and tap him. Place this card with the character."
would work. It would not work in the same way as:
"Playable on a character eliminated by a body check that was eliminated this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his company, when the character has been eliminated."

In first case shadow-magic using character (target of cc) could become member of company after elimination of the to be returned character, in my proposal shadow-magic using character (target of cc) must be a member of the company at time of elimination of the to be returned character (albeit at time of elimination he does not necessarily must be a shadow-magic using character).

Depending on "stuff along these lines" that you will add or remove the card would work in that or (slightly) different way.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Poniatowski
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:17 pm
Location: Western PA USA

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Poniatowski » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:43 am

The intent of this card is that the shadow-magic using character is in the company when the character is killed. He/she can then play the card the turn the character is killed.... It is usually played immediately after the hazard, it is an out of turn type sequence.... raising the "zombie" type character makes the company now overt....

Very clearly interpreted by the wording on the card.... someone gets taken out, the magic user raises them at the end of hazard resolution.... the conditions are, of course... the magic user must be in the company, be able to use the card, with the character when they are killed AND have the card to cast in their hand.... This should ALL take place before the character is removed and placed in marshaling points or discard or out of play, etc..... basically while the body is still warm..... the player needs to have that card in hand, not get it form the sideboard later, etc.....

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”