Frost Sorceress

[Keith Katsikas]

021
Frost Sorceress
Human
Wizard
15
1
1
1
ACTION: Fully Engage Target Creature and put a Time Token on it. So long as there is a Time Token on Targeted Creature, that Creature cannot be Disengaged by any means.
3
2
4
6
4
Max Humber
R

[cadrac]

Does this mean that using Frost Sorceress on a Creature with Wandering will prevent if from Disengaging until it Wanders?

[Keith Katsikas]

This is true.

[Thrall King]

But, does the wandering creature count as "targeted creature" after it wanders? I know that a creature is no longer considered traded after it wanders, but if they are still the targeted creature, they are pretty much dead in the water. That would be nasty.

[Keith Katsikas]

Good, point. Looks like Frosty kills wandering. lol, who woulda thought?

[Thrall King]

I guess that changes them from wandering to glacial. That is why there are 2 of these babies in my wizard deck.

[Deleted]

What happened here? The creature would cease to be "targeted" at the end of the turn the ability was activated. We're all in agreeance, right?

[Thrall King]

I see where you are coming from Q, and I am not trying to second guess you Keith, but from the wording oin the card, it seems like the purpose of the ability was to keep a creature locked down until it lost its time tokens, just like Medusa except worse. It just seems like it is worded a little wonky. Am I correct?

[Keith Katsikas]

I deleted my last post. I most have been WAY over tired when I posted that. The entire purpose for Frost Sorcress's ability is to lock down the creature in which it targeted for so long as there are time tokens on it. "Q"'s comment made sence to me when I read it, however, it simply doesn't make sence now, that I'm awake and I am thinking clearly about how this card is suppose to work. If there is a problem with the ability of this card conflicting with an actual rule, then I would like someone to point out that rule to me. I'm not sure there is a rule that states that a create that is was targeted by an other creature is no longer considered to have been targeted by that creature on subsequent turns.

[Deleted]

The problem here is that too many liberties are being taken with the wordings of the card. That's why this type of thing should never happen...cards have to be worded as simply as possible, and the rules have to buffer and shoulder the burden of any wording or concept that is remotely abstract or just fail to be crystal clear. (I already have concerns for several DU cards...we'll get to that...)

We can't play around with the word "targeted". This type of word manipulation is what gets us dragged into confusing and ambiguous rulings. The problem isn't TK, Keith, or me, but simply that this card should never have been worded this way b/c now we are all guessing at what the "intent" of the card was. The fact of the matter is that it should never have involved Time Tokens unless it was purposefully meant to interact with the other cards, and if that were true, then she kills Wandering, Vampires, Growth creatures, and comboes only too well with Time Manipulator and other Time Token applieres, making her overpowered IMO. Also, think of the mechanics of the game...how exactly were we supposed to keep track of creatures targeted or not targeted by Frost Sorceress amongst a myriad of creatures with Time Tokens? What happens if a creature previously targeted by her ability loses all of its TTs but then gets some later from a different source? Does her ability kick in, and why shouldn't it since the rules don't exactly have her under control? It is way too crazy and I myself could have a field day with this, and any competent player will try to exploit this. Recalling Gencon, they have already...

If I were to make an assessment, drawing from my experience with ME, I'd say that Frost Sorceress at a mere 15 loyalty, intends to engage a creature with her ability with the added bonus of not letting that creature disengage itself that turn. For it to work any other way would need a completely different structure of the way the card looks now.

What I'm saying is, the line of text that speaks of time tokens is not found as its own entity on the text, but rather is a effect of the activated ability where it came from. That tells us that it does and should only apply to creatures it targets.

Here's where it gets messy. Keith, you want to quote that the rules don't specify the duration of time the act of being targeted lasts for. Now, it's easy to assume it means forever, but I could and will make the opposite argument that perhaps the rules don't even provide any time duration at all for this length, and as such the creature is only targeted during the event, making the wording pretty silly. (Wouldn't be the first time this has happened...)

Furthermore, I could also make the case that the affect of Frost Sorceress only applies to the Time Tokens she provides herself since the ability is drawn from an action where she provides time tokens. There is nothing to substantiate that she holds power over other Time Tokens. That sort of ability would have the form of a Continuous Effect on a card.

I continue to conclude that there is no way she can work like that. It opens up way too many language incongruencies with other cards, and is a nightmare to rule. You think we have trouble now? Wait til your the floor judge...not pretty.

The way this card reads in plain English, and the way it should have always been worded IMO since it is what it seems to have been designed to do, is "Fully Engage Target Creature. That Creature cannot be disengaged by any means this turn."

Thoughts?

Notwithstanding, this convo shouldn't be here. It should be moved elsewhere IMO.

I know it seems ugly, but this type of rules debate makes me feel right at home here on the Forums. It's been awhile...ahhhh. Look forward to your guys' potential rebuttal. As it were, here went my 2 cents. GL!

[spiller]

Q, I am with you on some of this but as the card is currently printed, I would rule that any creature targeted by Time Sorceress stays fully engaged as long as it has a time counter on it. As worded, I think the ruling is pretty simple.
Now if a creature wanders, does it ever (however briefly) leave play? If it does, then a wandering creature would disengage unless it is retargeted by a Frost Sorceress. I need to check my updated rules (if I can find them again LOL) to check on that.
The fact it may be too powerful or not is a completely different discussion. I have used the card in the past and while she is very good, I never found her to be broken. With all the new abilities relating to time tokens (especially Vampiric) that may have changed. The 15 loyalty is still an issue for nearly every character so it is not going to see play in every deck. I haven't gotten my hands on any of the new cards yet to playtest it.

[Deleted]

I fear where this is going. This word "targeted" is just one that I don't think gets the job done in terms of conveying accurately its definition in gameplay. And to be honest I have not once ruled it the way it is being suggested, nor has anyone here in Windy. We rule the "targeted" concept as something only affecting for the turn for which it was activated, and even then, only for the actual time token the witch puts on, not any others that may have been on there from other mechanics or card sources. We saw fit to rule this way bc 1) The rulebook did not provide enough detail to answer the query and 2) Extrapolation and similarity of situation with any comparable ccg and 3) Perceived intention of the card.

Let me take this another way...I just feel that reading it the way suggested here opens up a lot of opportunity to attack the game through wording manipulation. Say, a Wandering Creature becomes Targeted by Frosty, but then a response makes the Wandering creature Invisible, making the original target illegal. Now, someone could make the case that although Frosty failed to fully engage the creature and put her own token on, it still targeted the Wanderer. What then? It's a silly concept, but the language makes it possible.

Are you also to suggest that if Frost Sorceress attacks and is intercepted by a creature, making it so she targets the creature with her attack, and that creature happens to be Wandering, that it doesn't disengage anymore? Think about it...

Also, what are the exact limitations of her abilities then? Does this targeted concept extend for as long as both the Sorceress and other creature are in play? Why not if either left play and then came back? If you are to suggest that the rules don't support the idea that the timing of targeted only lasts that turn, where do the rules talk then of how the game recognizes the abilities of creatures as they interact with each other? Namely, if I target your creature, it gets bounced back to hand and then played at a later time, where does it sugggest it's not the same creature? Again, these are all concepts I would never realistically consider viable, but this is the avenue I think we're going with this.

It only gets worse from here. There are other examples...

Maybe I've been away too long, maybe I'm missing something here, but something just seems funny about the idea of her ability extending beyond the turn's activation. I don't see it...

[Thrall King]

If her ability was only meant to last until the end of the turn, it would say just that and not involve the time tokens. It still lasts until the end of the round, unless it is one of the powerful wanderers, vampires, and growth creatures. Since she is rare, she can be handled easily.

[Keith Katsikas]

"Q" is making good points. He has been since the begining, and I have seen them right along. What I really wish would happen here, is a sugested solotion, rather than a rant about how aweful things are that we're ruling on this card this way. The card's intent is pretty simple to see by us who have played since the begining or the early part of things. For me... HELL I created the stop card. That's why the wording SUCKS!!! I know what the intent is and I already posted it. The question is, How do we fix this. I understand that using Targeted in this manor was a mistake and that it should never have happened and that it should never happen again. But for now, what do we do about it?

[Deleted]

Good points all of you. And also, I had no intention of sounding like I was ranting. My bad. The reason I stuck to stressing the problem is that I just wanted to make sure it was understood. Now, Keith, the avenue here is yours. There are many ways this could be interpreted, and I'm sorry but I don't see clearly what the intent is. I am currently confused as to whether you wanted Frost Sorceress to be able to interact with Wandering and Vampiric (among others) or not. Here are some choices...

If you do want the interaction...

Fully Engage Target Creature and put a Time Token on it. While Frost Sorceress remains in play, Creatures Targeted by this ability cannot be Disengaged by any means as long as there is a Time Token on it. Targeted Creatures retain this effect while they remain in play.

(Here, we are still using "Targeted", but all uncertainties are provided for. This of course would be an Errata on the card itself.)

If you do not want the interaction...

Fully Engage Target Creature. That Creature cannot be Disengaged by any means until it's Controller's next Disengage Phase.

(This would also be an errata)

I really don't know about the other alternative, and that being trying to write something in the rules about the terms "Targeted" so as to provide a Time Window for its effect. I think it may be too much.