Frost brand/flame tongue vs. flesh golem?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

This came up during today's session. I'm not sure it's ever come up for me before, though it may have and I may have just forgotten how I handled it last time, seeing as I've been playing so long. The PCs went up against several flesh golems. One of the rangers has a flame tongue sword, and a frost brand sword. In the MM, it says that cold and fire based spells merely slow a flesh golem. The players posited the idea that since a frost brand emanates magical cold (which can extinguish fires and is even powerful enough to extinguish a wall of fire), if used against the golem it should slow it. The idea is that part of the plus damage comes from the cold. Same for the flame tongue. We use the flame tongue similarly to the frost brand, as we discussed in another thread. So the argument is that it should also slow the golem.

I can see the argument, even though technically these are not spells being cast against the golem. I liked their critical thinking, but I'm wondering how everyone else feels about it. We'll probably stick with that allowance for this campaign, but I'm wondering for future ones what you all think. I can see it going either way. Make a believer out of me, one way or the other. Do those swords slow a flesh golem, or not?

[garhkal]

I've had a wielder of a frost brand before, go against a flesh golem. DM did NOT have the sword, act like those spells to slow it.. So i say NO.
It would NOT count to slow a golem down. Same with a Flame tongue...

[Cole]

I would allow it, as SPELLS were the initial way the magic items were created in the first place (spells put into the item). I'd say BOTH would work. I'm on your player's side

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

1 yes, 1 no. Tied score!

[garhkal]

So we go to penalties..
Cole, who'e your goalie!

[Cole]

LoL, Oddly enough ... I'd put YOU Gar in my net... but since your against me, I'll put JadedDM in the pipes (as we say in Canada). LoL

[garhkal]

We' make a right pair..