Are Personal Wards even possible?

Yes. The thing that you are warded against cannot touch you, throw stuff at you, etc. And, yes, according to RAW, the ward needs to penetrate you (not a problem if it is Range Personal, but could be a problem if it is Range Touch) and it needs to penetrate the Magic Resistance of whatever it wards against.

Assuming you are the thing that the ward is effective against you cannot teleport in or out of the ward. If you are someone else, say the caster of the ward, then you can teleport in and out of the ward fine.

On the other hand, I think that it should be possible to summon something into a ward. Or maybe you can't and that's why infernalism is so dangerous --- you need to summon the demon and then (quickly) cast the ward. Not, of course, that anyone would be summoning demons.

I'm less sure about a magic creature who is trapped in a ward disappearing into the Magic Realm, that sounds a bit wrong, but may well be RAW.

The "indirectly" part is usually ignored (tho' perhaps it should not be). But that's usually only relevant against intelligent creatures. Personal Wards more often take the form of a barrier against a Form or some subset of it - metal (weapons), the human touch, fire, etc etc.

And, yes, it's like your very own suit of impervious (or so you hope!) magical armour against X.

I think the 'indirectly' part is pretty important, or it becomes a breeze.
My main point here is whether a warded Magic Creature with a 'go to the magic realm' power is able to avoid it.
Transcendence rather than teleportation, or plane-shifting, or whatever.

What I meant was most personal wards are not Wards Against Faeries of ______, or Wards Against Creatures of Magical Might, but wards against weapons or direct damage.

That will vary from Saga to Saga and mage to mage, esp in the case of a personal Ward vs Demons, which could be ~very~ popular in some instances.

"Directly" vs "Indirectly" becomes moot, as there is no circle to break (which is what that terminology specifically refers to) - but it would cover a weapon wielded by that creature, etc etc (or that's the way I'd rule it.)

As for, say, a tree pushed over onto a mage by a Magical Creature, when the mage is warded against Magical Creatures and not against trees? It would not break a Circle, but I think it would break the mage - just feels different to me.

The indirect part is why making the moveable wards grant soak or a natural resistance bonus tends to work better. A magus protected against humans cannot have the humans even try to attack him, according to the raw, even if it is using a trebouchet in his general direction. That makes no sense at all IMO (YMMV).

The tree example is something that makes indirect attacks a breaker of Suspension of Disbelief for me. According to the RAW the creature cannot push the tree at all. Yeah, sure. And magi cannot cast spells at you either if you are protected vs humans.

Cheers,

Xavi

There's also the potentia interpretation that if X can't affect Y, Y can't affect X. The Personal Ward (using the circle-ward examples) would then be as much a hindrance as a boon.

So it ends up being a tottally ridiculous spell able to break down the setting by itself. Nice.

Xavi

Personally I'm in favor enforcing that 'indirect' level of protection in the RAW, because otherwise I feel it is too easy for a cheap out and avoiding someone's ward altogether.

An interesting posit concerning magi and someone with a human ward on them. I hadn't considered that, though my initial reaction is that is indeed correct, but that the ward would have to penetrate first... then I start thinking about the whole 'should wards penetrate' can of worms again. An entirely new ( old ) discussion which I won't repeat.

I like personal wards, and I generally feel that played well with suitable enforcement of the downsides of them or requiring additional complexity levels to get you around said downsides, they aren't a hindrance to gameplay or the setting. A Rego Master who has devoted some effort to warding himself is supposed to be hard to hurt IMO.

To paraphrase another game ( Rifts to be precise ), I don't worry about anyone having cosmic powers, in any given area. In this game, Magi just simply rock. It isn't a case of any one guy being super powerful, and you have to worry about that. It is a group of super powerful guys, all with their own schtick. So it balances out, IMO.

And really it depends on your execution of the scene and your personal interpretation/view of the spells/effects in question as to whether it breaks your suspension of belief. That however, when it happens, is a big problem... I agree with you there.

The trebuchet example is a good one. I can see that going either way on the disbelief angle, mainly based on expectations and execution. I can easily see how that could ruin someone's disbelief for the scene in that case, though I am not certain if it would mine. But then... I'm a firm believer in the 'indirect' level protection, as I said before.

Would you allow a human who just picked up a sword and used it to attack to circumvent a 'human' ward? This is the classic example of what I consider the 'cheap out' of ward bypassing... and is what I think the 'indirect' protection is supposed to prevent. If I am warded vs. humans, the human can't swing a sword at me in order to avoid having to confront my ward. It is however an idea easily taken to extremes as you have shown... but that doesn't mean it isn't there for a reason.

Actually, V, that idea is not there at all - at least not in the rules for Personal Wards, only for Circle Wards. I think the "cheap out" comes from the unsupported expectation that a Personal Ward should work identically to a Circle Ward - which the rules say, specifically, it does not. There is a reason that a Protective Circle is superior in some circumstances, and the RAW support that preference. (see below.)

And this may hurt for some to read - so take a deep breath, accept that your preconceptions may have been from a mis-remembering of the rules (gawds know there are enough of them to forget and confuse), and let's look at this little section with fresh eyes...

No, just a totally ridiculous interpretation, to be slavish to one part of the rules that makes little sense and is not relevant here. Especially if you add in the fact that this interpretation is not supported by the RAW, as I mentioned above. (But I'm getting used to talking to the wind, apparently.)

I know it's a radical concept, but let's look at the exact wording, rather than go with the vague impressions, loose memories and houseruled interpretations that seem to dominate these boards of late..."Wards with a Circle target are of particular note... Warded things cannot act across the circle, no matter which side they are on, nor can they damage the circle, directly or indirectly..." (Magical Wards, AM p 114)Several points jump out (to me, at least)...1) That passage is only referring to "Wards with a Circle target". Personal Wards are not covered by this paragraph!

  1. The word "act" is open to interpretation - it could be as indirect as the SG wishes. But again, it's only relevant against... (say it with me...) "Wards with a Circle target".

  2. The thing they are also specifically prohibited from damaging is the circle, (not those across the circle, who are (in theory) covered by #2 above, the "act" prohibition.)So, none of this applies to a Personal Ward, only the part that came before the very first opening sentence of that paragraph: "Wards with a Circle target are of particular note." And with regard to what is protected and how (as opposed to comments on R/D/T), that consists solely of the following statement, the opening statement in that sub-section:"Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form.""OF THE APPROPRIATE FORM". Think about that. Drop your preconceptions and "How we've been playing it" and "How you thought it worked", and wrap your head around that simple, clear, concise statement.

A generic Ward protects the target from things of the appropriate Form. That is the base effect, nothing more. The rest merely specifies how that protection expands when presented as a Circle.

The metal sword that a human holds is not of the Form of Corpus. The trebuchet boulder that flies through the air is not Corpus. The tree that a beastie or creature pushes over is Herbam - is the target warded against Herbam? The magical sword that a demon summons is, arguably, Vim, and so that would be warded against if the target had a personal ward against Demons up and running. Similarly (and similarly arguable) with a faerie and a fae-crafted weapon.

A Circle works differently. A Circle is better! A Circle stops the warded creatures at the Circle, and specifically prevents them from "acting across that circle" in any way, and also from directly or indirectly "breaking" that circle, which (as we all know) would end the spell. A Circle of Protection is exactly that - it protects.

But a personal Ward is not just an identical effect with different R/D/T - and before anyone starts to whine and cry and claim that "The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way..." (and stop me if you've heard this before) - (re-)read the section! There are only 3 paragraphs, and they're short, as are the words they use. The first outlines how a general ward works (which is what makes wards in general a different category than any other effect!). The second explains aspects unique to circles. And the third comments on the fact that altho' a ward has a different base guideline R/D/T than Personal, Momentary, Individual, that R/D/T is not fixed and can be changed as with any other spell.

(Note that if it was identical, and all the rules of that 2nd paragraph applied to personal wards, you could cast a personal-Touch ward on the beastie and it could not affect anyone or anything - "Warded things cannot act across the circle, no matter which side they are on." This would be awkward if a Personal Ward were a Circle... which it's not.)

So, here's the important thing to remember - (and I welcome anyone who wants to entertain us by trying to refute this statement) - if you change the Target from Circle, then it's no longer a "Ward with a Circle target". And that entire 2nd paragraph goes away, and everything goes with it, except the sentence - “Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form.”

So - a human with a sword cannot "act" across a circle, but if a personal ward does not ward against Terram - that sword hits. This is not an extreme - this is simply the AM interpretation of the genre - that taking the time to create a protective circle is superior to casting an otherwise "identical" spell on yourself and pretending there is no difference.

Now - as always, that doesn't mean that you can't houserule it differently. On the contrary, you don't work for the RAW, they should work for you, and if they don't, beat them down and build them back up the way you think they should look. If you want to rule that Personal Ward against Corpus prevents the Pope from excommunicating you or sending his agents in your direction (or in any other way "acting against you", directly or indirectly), fine, no skin off my nose, have fun.

But if people are going to complain or comment or opine, let's get the RAW straight first.

I'd agree, by strict interpretation of that verbage ( unverified, but I believe you. ) personal wards work differently and don't necessarily give the same indirect protection.

I dislike that for two reasons, one being what I mentioned above ( cheap out, wards being made worthless by cheese ), and the second being I dislike there being special exceptions in the magic system. i.e. Wards function as certain way, except if they are circle wards? That I don't like. A given effect should function the same way at all R/D/T, at a given level of effect. That is me being a picky bastard perhaps.

So, in my preference they 'should' function exactly the same, and that preference includes a predisposition to indirect protection.

No, again, I think you're letting your preconceptions define your reaction.

Wards work very differently than any other effect - they are a "special exception" to begin with. They take a specific and limited magical effect, and that magical effect waits on the primary target for another target - the one it is intended to "Rego" against. This effect is unique in Ars as it breaks many standard rules and expectations, and so there are specific guidelines to allow this classic and traditional effect within the standard AM spell framework.

Wards are wards - they protect from X. But as a Ward, a Circle has different vulnerabilities if "X" is intelligent and/or can act against that circle, and so that needed to be addressed. Also, in fantasy genre, whenever we see or read about a circle of protection it is a CIRCLE OF PROTECTION - it's more powerful because it's a circle - it's in a fixed location, it takes more time to produce - a little more juice makes sense.

The Personal Ward is not less powerful because it's personal, it's just the baseline. A Circle improves on that.

Why is allowing a more complicated process to be proportionally better "cheese", but boosting a quick-and-dirty portable version to the same status not?

A Personal Ward against Wood is a ward against wood. A Personal Ward against Corpus is a ward against human touch - not an wooden arrow fired by a human, not an iron axe thrown by a human, and not a steel sword wielded by a human. If a mage wants to be protected "against human action", draw a circle.

You're taking the rules that address the vulnerabilities of a circle and lumping them in with the base effect on a personal version - which is fine, just understand that's what you're doing.

(You're also creating the very problems that people are complaining about there - a personal ward that prevents any "act", whatsoever, against the target, regardless of Form or other consideration. That has "swiss cheese" written all over it to me.) :wink:

Extremely so.

If you want to be protected from human action, use a Mentem ward - preventing anyone from thinking about harming you...

I got to become an Archmagus because of Play-by-Post games. Come over to Andorra and I will show you :smiley:

Several others are right on my heels, and we will see some more Archmagi soon :wink:

If you permit, I will. But this is in a certain way reluctantly, as I completly agree personnal ward should not protect against indirect attack. Our troupe house ruled that individual wards protected by giving soak (or other bonus) against the form, so a ReCo ward protect against punches and kicks, but not against swords. We use ReTe wards against metal for swords. Etc, you got the idea.
I disagree with Cuchulainshound about the RAW,
but I agree with him and others about "how wards should be".
This is a subject I put a lot of thoughts on, since I play a ReVi specialist, with a focus in wards since 3 years in our saga.

So, why is that a house rule, and why should we think Cuchulainshound's reasonning (about the RAW) is wrong ?

You quote:
"Wards with a Circle target are of particular note... Warded things cannot act across the circle, no matter which side they are on, nor can they damage the circle, directly or indirectly..." (Magical Wards, AM p 114)
and latter:
"The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way..." (same page)

Your only argument on RAW stands on interpreting the special rules about wards (p.114) concerning the circle target in a certain way. You say that the indirect protection - kind of "absolute" protection depending on how far you decide "act" is defined - that indirect protection concerns only "Wards with a Circle target".

I quote you:

The rest of what you say is interesting, but the whole argument about how to interpret the RAW falls if that sentence is falsly interpreted.

Usually, we say that "The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way...", hence the effect of the spell is the same as with circle. But you say that the indirect protection concerns only circle wards, because they talk about it only in the wards section about circle wards. Well, first thought, you seem to forget rapidly that they also go on saying "The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way...".
You seem to answer: "no, no, that was meant to apply to wards in general, not to wards with a target circle."

But the paragraph about circle wards was not meant to limit only to circle wards the indirect protection. You didn't supported this part with arguments from the book, you simply assumed discovering that idea was proof enough. In fact, there is another idea(interpretation) that is closer to the spirit of the rules and that you missed.

2 page before that, on p.112, there is the description about Target: Circle. It says it "...effects everything within a ring drawn...".
On p. 114, "Wards with a Circle target are of particular note." Why are circle wards of particular note ? because they are so more powerfull than other wards ? No. Because such spells doesn't target what's inside, but target the circle itself. I invite you to read that paragraph with that in mind.

This is clearly the intent of that paragraph. The emphasis is not on "cannot act accross" but on how the effect works when the target is circle. The intent about circle wards, when the say "...cannot act accross the circle..." was not to say that this was an added effect, but to say that the effect is different when the target is circle. The ward is "on the circle", and not on the person inside it, as a manner of speaking.
That explain why they casually say latter: "The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way...".

[E.g.: Were not for that specification about circle wards, a circle wards would have a similar effect then a wards with Target: group, with the difference that the warded people need to remain in the circle for the effect to be maintained. A demon could enter and leave the circle, as long as it doesn't try to hurt the one(s) inside it.]

Now, you might think this doesn't disprove your idea. You could say: "Well, the paragraph was meant to inform us that circle wards where on the circle, and that it was more powerfull." But this become far fetched since "The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way..." and they don't specify that the effect will change if you change the parameters. (Which would be somewhat an important information!). The key word in "cannot act accross the circle" is "accross-the-circle" and not "cannot-act-accross".
More importantly, note also that the ReVi guideline speak about the "creature warded against cannot directly affect the target physically or by magical means".
[A note about the word direct here."Direct" here having about the same meaning of our "indirect", this may sound strange, but we all agree "magical means" could include mental control, and depending on your definition of words, this is direct or indirect. So direct here mean that the creature is the "direct cause" of harm, even if he use an "indirect means" to harm. We need to think here about a tree being big compared to a mouse but small compared to a mountain.]

If you go on with your idea nonetheless, this mean that you would need different levels of personnal wards to protect against stronger creatures.
You would need a ReVi10 (Tch, Sun) to protect against punch of demon of might 10 or less. ReVi20 for punch of might 20 or less, ReVi30 against might 30, etc.
To me, this is too much different spells to protect from the same thing. From my experience this is true.
If you are barring with me, then you may find the wisdom in Xavi's (and others?) houserule, giving a flat level to ward against demon's puches, as there is a flat level to protect against swords Or make something like protection from flame, and give a soak bonus depending on level.

Like I said in the beginning, our troupe houseruled the same way you interpret the rule. Some months ago, I would have agreed with you. I've always thought this is how the RAW should have been written (let's call it SBW "Should Be Written", as in "this go farther than a houserule, the writter/editor really made a mistake here." 5th ed. and improving =)

(Hmmm - an interesting deconstruction, and partially convincing. I'll have to re-read that (several times) and especially in light of the definition of Target: Circle.

I'm not convinced that your interpretation of the purpose of the "special note" is your way and not the way I had read it - but I'm not (yet) going to dismiss it, either. However, "of special note" cannot merely point out that Circles work differently - all Targets of Wards work differently! So it's quite possible it means both, but (for now) I'm still convinced it adds to the baseline effects from the opening paragraph only regarding Circles, and does not universally expand them for any Target.)

(And it's more possible that the authors never expected this level of scrutiny.) 8)

Salvete Sodales!

Actually I personally am surprised about the discussion. I always took the 'can't act over the circle boundary' just as meaning that the thing the protection works against can't cross the line. I would always allow the use of a sword - if it is long enough to reach the intenden target.
The 'neither dircetly nor indirectly damaging the circle'-passage I just interpreted as a provison to keep those creatures from just destroying the circle line and thereby ending the spell.
So, actually ims a magus who wants to be reasonably protected from attacks by a perceptive and intelligent opponent surely needs a combe of wards, indepndant on the question whether they are circular or personal.
On a second reading I'd say that this just depends on the question how people read 'act across' - so most versions aren't against the RAW just interpretations of its meanings.

Vale,
Alexios ex Miscellanea

I would agree with that on most "advanced" questions about RAW. When playing D&D some years ago, I once was credited with the ability "invoke obscure rule". I don't think invoking an obscure rule is a good thing to do while playing, but I do think most texts can be understood in different ways. Heck, some people are still arguing about what is the real subject of Plato's Republic. I was teached that it was about some sort of utopian city but in fact would be more about a way to tell what is justice and how to define it.

My opinion is that the discussions going on on the berklist and on the forum would be more profitable if they were to the point when there is consensus, but were about agreeing on where the controversy lie as a start of debate when there is not. It happens, but could be better... So more could be done about getting Ars Magica even better.

Maybe, but I think we need to not underestimate the difficulty of writting rules for Ars Magica. Sometimes, you can write about an idea, and that idea is clear in your mind but not so to another one when he reads about what you have written.

The rules read as this (p. 114):

"\1\ Rego spells can create wards, (...). These use the normal targets, but the target is the thing protected, rather then the things warded against, (...).
\2\ Wards with a Circle target are of particular note. (Important rules about Circle wards, go read it in the book please.)
\3\ The spell guideline for [b]wards /bare listed with a base range of Touch, base duration of Ring, and base target of Circle (...) The parameters of the spell can be changed in the normal way, (...)"

About this text, we already established elsewhere that the word "target" here means "a group of words used when talking about a spell, those are defined as being either: individual, circle, group, room, etc. (p.112-113 ArM5)", as opposed to target as in "what/who the spell is 'aimed' at, or the intended being to be affected". (not a perfect definition, I agree.)

About Circle wards being of a particular note, we can read:
\1\ All wards have a special rule about their target as noted.
\2\ Circle wards use the Circle target in a special way as noted.
\3\ All wards' guidelines can be changed as normal.

I hope you can see now how the text intend to precise how wards works about circle. Those rules are about how wards work when the target is circle, meaning when the target is some sort of curved line drawn upon the ground. Those wards don't only protect a curved line, they do more than that: warded being can't act across the curved line.

A clarification on the rules could be issued to add between the first line and the second line of the second paragraph about wards (p.114):
"They do not affect what is inside as is normal with a Target: Circle, but use the circle line itself as a magical limit blocking what is warded against."

(This would also resolve the "Does circle warps what is inside?" question!)
I do agree personnal wards should be different than circle if the rules were to be balanced (IMO). Even if I think I made a good reading of the rules about our subject now, I would also agree the rules are not 100% clear on that: the text is itself "partially convincing" as you say. I'm just trying to use my reading skills to know what the text most probably wants to say.

I think the rules should be made more clear about wards in general.(and p. 113 of HoH:S on penetration and wards be errataed, if you ask me.)

Yes, I like to digress =P

We now clearly have a mission - we WILL bore and confuse everyone to the point of never bringing this subject up again! On the graves of Lacan and Derida, I swear it!!! :laughing:

These two are inclusive, not exclusive - that is, they are not "of particular note" about only wards with Circle targets, but about all wards in general. The first is in the paragraph before the "of particular note" paragraph, the last in a paragraph after (and that is not a clear continuation of the topic of that one.)

I agree. Altho' there is nothing that says that the wards stop acting as normal in so many words, a Ward with Target:Circle can be used to either protect those within from what is outside, or those outside from what is within! Thus, the "normal target" of a Circle ("everything within the circle") is changed, and the concept of "not acting across the circle boundary" takes its place. (This is obviously because the magical effect here is a unique "protection against a Form", rather than any normal effect that would require the use of Rego on a specific sensed Target within Range at the time of casting! That would be an effect like Strings of the Unwilling Marionette - which is distinctly different - and which is what makes Wards an exception to the usual spell rules.)

But in the end, that matters not a bit with regard to a Circle protecting the targets within (which is the flawed analogy that personal wards draw from!). A Corpus target inside a circle of protection cannot then act against anyone or anything outside that circle - no swords, no trebuchets, no arrows, nothing - truly isolated, a powerful effect! But there is no "Circle" to act across with a Personal Ward. So swords, trebuchets, arrows, sticks and stones and slings and darts of outrageous fortune, all are fine - so long as The Form protected against is not involved (here, "Corpus").

Let's start with the normal rules for a target, and then proceed to try to follow the logic of the Authors, since that's where the Authors themselves start...Rego spells can create wards which protect the target from things of the appropriate Form. These use the normal targets, but the target is the thing protected, rather than the thing warded against, and the range is the range to the target, not to the things warded against.
(Magical Wards, p 114, par i, emphasis added)
These use the "normal targets" - this is important because the previous section, Magical Senses, did not. And it's important because of the distinction drawn - that the "normal target" of the Rego effect is NOT of the Form of the spell - a very significant change from normal guidelines.

Target:Circle is (normally) defined as follows on page 112:Target
Circle: The spell affects everything within a ring drawn by a magus at the time of casting, and ends if the circle is broken, even if that is before the duration of the spell expires. The spell also ends when its duration ends..."
(and then comments about drawing the Ring itself, not relevant here.)(emphasis added)
So it's not a huge leap to guess that the authors foresaw a problem in a "protection" spell that relied on an intact circle that did not also protect that circle itself. And any agile mind can imagine confusion if that protection spell worked only against the entity protected against (demons, fae, the human body, fire) but allowed it to act across the circle, so long as it ignored the circle itself. This (I hope) we agree upon - that the point of the 2nd paragraph is that without protecting itself, a circle Ward becomes next to pointless in many situations. A ward using Vim can't protect against demons if the demon can piss on the circle (Aquam) and erase it, and thus erase the protection. And by simply making the Circle itself a "force field against X Form and actions by X Form", it both avoids all manner of confused mis-interpretatins (burrowing under the circle, or attacking the dirt within the circle, etc) as well as creating something closer to what we expect from a Circle in genre.

But otherwise, when the Ward is not a Target:Circle - if you, personally (or as one out of a Group, or one in a Room, etc) are warded against one Form, any other Form can still affect you, regardless of what sent that Form toward you. A Ward against Ignem is not a Ward against a tree that falls because of that fire, a Ward against Aquam is not a Ward against a tree that falls because of a nearby flooded stream, and a Ward against Corpus is not a Ward against a tree that a man chops down, nor a sword that a man wields. It is a Ward "which protects the target from things of the appropriate Form" - only.

(Note that magical "demon piss" is probably just as "Vim" oriented as the demon itself, and would be blocked either way.)

However, unless the Ward is a Circle (and thus "of particular note", with all those additional protections) if that demon picked up a mundane club and hit you lightly over the head, or took a bucket of water and poured it over you, that is no different than any peasant doing the same thing. A standard Ward protects against a Form. A Circle Ward, only, is "of partcularl note".

It is classic in-genre to envision that if a character has a personal charm that is a "ward against demons", then no demonic actions can affect them. However, it is just as valid to see that only as a charm against possession and magic, and demonic touch and etc. - but that a simple mundane dagger wielded by a demon would be a different matter. Neither model has sole "authority" - so we look to what the rules say, and how they say it.

Beside the fact that the "act across" phrase specifically refers only to Circles, the clear dealbreaker is that, with a Circle, it can work either way - to bar the Form outside, or trap it inside the Circle - and that's when "acting across the circle" becomes important. This is not the case with personal wards, not even close. Imo, it is a gross mis-interpretation of these rules to argue that Personal Wards follow all the rules of Circle Wards. That's not to say that such as a HouseRule is fine - but it's not at all supported by the RAW.

Hmmm... you might be going out on a limb, but.. I, and perhaps one or two others, just might be willing to agree on this point, at least. :wink:

(Also, while they're at it, about what I've called "pseudo wards", which attach some different spell effect to a target and expect it to then work on secondary targets in the same exceptional way that the Rego effect works here.)

(And all should note that, by the Rules, a "Ward" is only a Rego/Form spell that blocks a Form, as described in that subjection, AM p 114. It is not any other spell effect that protects a target, as some inventive souls have presented/suggested. I have used the term "psuedo-ward" to describe these non-canon, arguably non-Hermetic effects.
Wards and "Pseudo-Wards" )

I would like to continu on the other subject you brought forward after we somehow finish dealing (agreeing or disagreeing) with the "wards".
I'm talking about spells "which attach some different spell effect to a target and expect it to then work on secondary targets in the same exceptional way that the Rego effect works here." If you agree to, of course :slight_smile:

On the wards, I agree with you on relying on no authority of the mythic conception about wards.

I took the time to understand clearly what you are saying, and I still come to the same conclusion. I will present how I understand your argument, ask me about mine if you think you may have misunderstood me.

You say that the rules about "secondary protection" of wards are found only in the Circle paragraph about wards.
Here is a quote from you showing why I understand that:

Since you claim that the rules about "secondary protection" are only found there, you go on concluding that only Circle wards will have that "secondary protection".
On support of that, you continu saying that non-Circle wards protect only against one form, basing your argument on a quote from the book:

There is three main problem with what you are saying.
First, the rules about "secondary protection" is not only found in the Circle paragraph on wards.
The Rego Vim guideline on wards says: "A creature warded against cannot directly affect the target physically or by magical means."
I've already explained that we need to take the word "directly" here as meaning something similar to the "secondary protection".
So I have ground to say that all wards in general give the secondary protection.

Second, to keep your position, you would need to say that the second paragraph about wards was intended to add to the power of wards. I agree their is need to protect the line itself, so the circle will not be broken: that is one use of that paragraph.
But you would need to go farther than that, and say that this paragraph is there to actually make circle wards more powerfull than other wards.
I find you fail to acheive that.
If we read the text, we see the emphasis is on the way the ward power works with a target circle. It is of no surprise that the author need to make some reference to the power itself, but that is incidental. It is incidental because you need to talk of the power to explain how it works with a target:Circle.

Third, your supporting argument about the wards protecting only against one form fails regarding the same ReVi guideline.
Following the ReVi guideline about wards, I can make a personnal/individual ward against fearies that will protect me from their mental control, for exemple. The same ward would also protect me against a feary dragon that breath fire. Those are Mentem and Fire, different from than Vim. So wards doesn't protect from only one form, as per ReVi guideline.

You could then say that only ReVi wards give "secondary/indirect protection". Maybe that what's they meant when they say in the same ReVi guideline: "Not that wards can be constructed using other forms, but that those wards are more limited in effect."
But then I think we would be the first to interpret the rules in that way. It would also seems weird to me.

In any case, what does the term "Ward against creature of..." means - which is use in most Rego/Form Guideline - is badly defined by the RAW. That's a major reason why people often argue about that subject: we each read how wards works differently, we each play differently about wards. What does "cannot act accross" means? What does "cannot directly affect the target physically or magically" means?
I think the intent of the rules is that it's the same power, but the first wording is about Circle wards, and the second about wards in general. But then, why do we found such important rules about wards in those obscure places ?

E.g.:If I make a personnal wards against creature of Auram, do I refer to the ReAu Guideline (which define nothing), the Circle wards or ReVi wards...?!?!