Still being more pedantic. ArM5 page 8 is a Glossary. A glossary defines terms (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary ). Our specific one even starts
Cheers
Yet, ritual magic is undefined on that page. It isn't even mentioned. And while, generally, a glossary does define terms, the glossary to which you are referring doesn't define the specific term: ritual magic. In addition, ritual magic isn't defined until much later, and it is described as being like formulaic magic, with the differences from formulaic being listed in the following paragraphs.
Oh yes, and while there is time: an author defining the term cats in a glossary as "Cats: animals with four legs." relies on the sense of humor of his editor and readers. 
Cheers
Correct. But Formulaic magic in that glossary is defined in such a way that it includes Ritual spells. This is, because Ritual spells are also "spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time".
Cheers
No. Formulaic magic is defined. Ritual magic is not defined. The snippet of the definition you quote from page 8, may apply to ritual magic, but ritual magic is not defined on page 8. Ritual magic is defined, as a term, on page 81. "Ritual spells are like formulaic spells, but..." And the section then goes on to differentiate ritual spells from formulaic spells, after it says that they are like formulaic spells.
Made some edits.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
There Ritual magic is explained without ever fully defining it - but it appears to mean 'use of Ritual spells'. Formulaic spells and Ritual spells are defined by giving the basic rules applying to them.
Quite correct too.
Still, the definition of Formulaic magic is on p.8 in the glossary and is taken up on p.81 again as
Then the structure of p.81 becomes a little muddled and the clean definition of the glossary is abandoned while the technical issues of Formulaic spells and Ritual spells get hashed out.
But that should not affect the definition of Formulaic magic from the glossary when reading other rules - especially when the technicalities of spellcasting (casting time, casting total, and such) do not play any role in these rules.
Cheers
Formulaic Magic and Ritual Magic are given equal section headings. There is nothing muddled here.
The definition of Formulaic Magic isn't in question here. The definition of Ritual Magic, is. Ritual magic is like formulaic magic, except for the ways it is different. It is like formulaic magic, in that the spell must be known ahead of time...
That Formulaic magic and Ritual magic get equal section headers on the technical p.81, but not equal entries in the definitions on p.8, while the p.8 definition of Formulaic Magic is taken up on p.81 again, means that the paragraph structure of p.81 is somewhat muddled: not on a whim, but to easier take care of important technical differences not relevant for the previous encompassing definitions.
... which makes it Formulaic magic by the definition of Formulaic magic on p.8. 
Cheers
Yeah. Sure. You betcha. The differences in Ritual Magic are significant and numerous enough has nothing to do with it. Nor do those differences have any impact on the reason for the ritual magic section being stronger. At best, they can be described as Casting Spells. There are three kinds of spells you can cast: formulaic, ritual and spontaneous.
... which makes it Formulaic magic by the definition of Formulaic magic on p.8.
Cheers
[/quote]
I never said the definition of formulaic magic is in question, despite your insistence and word play. The definition of Ritual Magic is in question. Formulaic magic is magic you know ahead of time. Full stop, no qualifications. Ritual magic is magic you know a head of time and differs from formulaic magic for many reasons (which are described in the Ritual Magic section). If you decide that the differences between ritual magic and formulaic magic are unimportant, then yes, you can say that ritual magic is formulaic magic. The text doesn't do that, however. It says that ritual magic is like formulaic magic, not is, but like.
The text on p.8 defines all - generally Hermetic (see entry for spell) - "spells that have been worked out in detail ahead of time" as Formulaic magic. No matter where, when and how they have been defined. That Ritual magic is explained/defined later has nothing to do with this: as it is explained later, it is on the level of the central glossary subsumed under Formulaic magic. Of course there are differences between Formulaic and Ritual spells on the technical level described on p.81, that do not appear on p.8, just as Ritual magic does not appear there.
P.81 is for basic definitions and wordings clearly overridden by the glossary on p.8. I will not repeat this ad nauseam: if you do not agree with it, just state that, and we are done.
Cheers
Interesting arguments either way. But it is clear to me that RAW does not in any way specifically state what Jebrik claims. You have to jump through hoops and do flips to interpret it that way. The reverse is also true. Do backflips and twist the wrench and it works the other way.
The game is not written in programming logic, and it is an error to apply strict mathmatic logic to the words. As someone who has done writing for this game, I would say the emphasis is more on concise brevity than clairity.
But the fact is that RAW does not say what some claim it says. It takes deliberate choice of interpretation to arrive at either conclusion. Occam's Razor, the simplest and most effective one is that Rituals are a type of Formulaic spell. It is just as much within RAW to define it either way, so it is totally a choice.
So why choose the one that nerfs players over the other that enables enhanced and efficient play?
I am leaning towards Oneshot's argument for an odd round about way. The Flexible Formulaic Magic virtue specifically mentions that it does not work on Ritual Magic. If Ritual magic were not considered formulaic magic then there is no need to mention it. While I wish that it would be clearer I must assume that the author wanted to be sure that FFM did not work on Rituals which you would never consider because of the name.
You mean, you won't repeat it any more than you already have? Nor will I. Ritual magic is not defined on that page. Period. And I don't agree that the glossary overrides any subsequent definitions later in the book.
Of course, this can also be explained by Arthur's commentary about the imprecise nature of language.
FWIW,
I hold that Formulaic Magic and Ritual Magic have the same rules, that is, for Formulaic Magic, except for where the rules explicitly call out a difference.
So Rituals take longer to cast. And require vis. And include AL+Phil in the Casting Score. And does not work with FFM. Etc.
I don't think I end up with any weirdness that way.
Anyway,
Ken
Thanks for the info.
However, this doesn't change the crux of my argument.
No idea, no one casts rituals usually, and when one was cast, it was handwaved
Which, IMO, implies that the player that wants to focus on being competent with [strike]pilum of fire[/strike] a ritual is better off not trying to be competent at all in most sagas, or, at worst (following David Chart's writing), being just a little competent. Which is a little sad, IMO: The social specialist, the combat specialist, the intellego specialist or demon hunter can all focus and master their signature spell, and are known and respected for this. The Ritual specialist, well, s-he lacks that.
This was part of my desire to work something different in my Rethinking ritual magic thread. I gave up, because others don't see the same problem that you and I see.
Designing a ritual specialist isn't my idea of a fun player character. Being able to cast many rituals easily and well doesn't leave you with a lot of spells that you can cast in other situations. He's a Mercurian? Well, he can't cast any spontaneous magic without serious investments of time, on the order of a ritual, so only the formulaic spells he knows can be used. Cautious Sorcerer, (ignoring Jebrick's take on it) is great for ritual caster and combat magus, alike. Strong Golden Cord is the same deal. Spending a lot of time mastering rituals has a different pay off than spending a lot of time mastering Pilum of Fire, or any other combat spell.
So the solution might be to create stories which cater to the ritual caster. Ok. Sure. It can be done, but how often? Combat, by its own nature is a much more flexible obstacle to put in the way of PCs. Even grogs and companions get involved in the combat, too. For the ritual? It's just one character. A ritual is like something of an epilogue or prologue. There are stories to be told up to the ritual or after the ritual has been cast, but the scene of casting the ritual is not the highlight of a story.
I understand your meaning, but I see this a little differently than you.
IMO, the same things apply to the longevity rituals specialist, of which I've seen more than once on these boards.
To me, if casting, say, an aegis, requires specialisation and a player is really good at casting a high-magnitude Aegis, not only will s-he handle the covenant's aegis, but s-he will also be asked by other covenants to cast theirs, or by the tribunal. S-he'll have an hermetic reputation as a powerful Aegis caster, and will be payed for all these castings.
=> The focus won't so much be on stories where s-he has to cast an aegis, but on the rewards the mastery of it bring, in prestige or vis. You don't get rewards (and vis) by blasting things, you get them by being contracted by other magi, just like your longevity specialist is.
This becomes more difficult if basically anyone can easily cast an aegis, moreso if they handwave from a tablet.
Likewise, you can do similar stories. The LR specialist may want to, say, create a LR that doesn't impact fertility. The "Body Made Whole" specialist may want to create a ritual that "heals" essential flaws such as Lame.
=> Not so much stories where the character does things, but stories where s-he tries to get better at what s-he does.
Hope this helps.
I don't see an Aegis specialist being in high demand for casting the Aegis, to be honest. It's a huge security risk that every magus in the covenant needs to accept. The caster hasn't signed any oath of covenant, and has rights to come into and invite others into the Aegis. Other rituals, though, can be done by specialists, though.
My idea didn't make it easier to cast an Aegis, unless by easier, you think trading time in exchange for no chance of botching is making things easier.
Yes, I agree, this is a problem for the Aegis, although not that different from contracting a LR specialist. Once an Aegis specialist betrays a covenant's trust, his career is toast, and his life probably is too: Every covenant he worked for will probably go gunning for him.
Note, though, that he can't invite anyone if he has no token, so the risk is limited to him, unless the covenant isn't very careful.
Hey, I had this idea of some Aegis specialists working like Ben Affleck in paycheck: You get paid to raise a covenant's aegis, then wake up somewhere with no memory of the covenant's name or location.
And I had nothing against your idea as an alternative either. It was interesting on many levels.