A ship is also an Individual, so you certainly can ward it against fire, and the ward will move with it. (Individual is not a container Target.) That won't ward everything on the ship against fire, though. Which is a good thing, because it allows you to cook. It allows you to build campfires on the deck, in fact.
1 Like
And that spell for people is already on ArM5 p.145: Ward against Heat and Flames. 
Floating campfires.
Ok, but it does mean that if you have a mobile setting, wards can't just be placed on "places". E.g. one effectively can't ward a ship's cabin against demons, or against vermin. One cannot ward a chest against demons, or vermin, unless the chest is left undisturbed. Also, again, one cannot protect with an Aegis a covenant on a floating island like Delos.
I'm just trying to understand: what's the purpose of this explicit provision against wards on moving containers? It seems it should be a game balance issue, because it certainly adds complexity, it certainly removes play options, and probably removes "mythic-ness". But I don't see any particular balance issue.
EDIT: or perhaps the "afterimage effect" is what you are after? There's some reason for having the physical space that was occupied by the chest, when the chest was warded, remain warded after the chest is moved and possibly destroyed? I don't know, I just fail to see where's the snag.
Looks pretty good. Much more overall consistency. I can think of a spell or two that will need to be added to the errata if this change goes through, but not many.
If Aegis of the Hearth is of the first kind, how come it affects creatures and spells trying to enter the Aegis well after it has been cast?
Wards protecting against things entering the warded structure (like typical ring/circle wards do) do not seem to fit into this framework either since they work just fine against creatures that never were inside the circle at any time.
What is the reason for having some spells not move with their container? What problem is that intended to fix?
So, draw a circle inside your lab, cast your spell, take a walk and leave your circle there sustaining your permanent effect on you?
It is meant to be thus:
The effect does not target "creatures and spells trying to enter the wards or Aegis".
Unless a real lab rat, your apprentice or your enemy's familiar breaks it ... by accident or intentionally.
As stated above one could use a touch, non-ring duration, individual ward on a chest. Opening the chest may break the ward, YSMV, but a demon or rat affected by the ward could not open or gnaw their way in. A ward of this sort could be enchanted into the onject.
Edited to erase a lot of words caused by my misreading of one word in a post.
These are not the droids you are looking for, carry on.
I had initially written rats, but I mean "vermin". In particular, I was thinking of ants, that have an incredible ability to sneak into anything less than ... hermetically closed 
How does an ant climb through a crack or onto a box it can’t touch due to warding?
Oh, you'd be surprised! But I'd say it can climb down into the box.
In case you have little faith, or experience (or both) in ants' devilish ability to find their way in, just think of a backpack with a ward against water - one of the most common "parting gift spells" magi in our saga provide to redcaps. If the ward is T:Ind, the backpack stays dry, but do you really think it won't get wet, or at least damp, inside?
1 Like
That would still be ... bad. Most of all, ugly.
But I think that the proposed errata do not change the fact that D:Ring ends when the target (in fact, any part of the target) leaves the circle. So, if a magus casts a spell "of the first type" affecting himself and his grogs at T:Circle, D:Moon, sure, he's shaved 2 magnitudes off T:Group, but the effect is not permanent. If on the other hand he casts a spell with T:Circle, D:Ring, the spell ends as soon as any of them leave the ring, regardless of whether it's first or second type.
1 Like
That is correct.
Incidentally, I've opened a new thread exclusively for "container wards", here.
Because it's really not just about T:Boundary, and also because it seems the only substantial point of the new (excellent: clear and concise) text about containers still without consensus.
"Aegis is not mobile" is a long-standing assumption of the game, and is explicit in the rules. "Boundaries" of the sort imagined by the rules are not normally mobile, nor are rooms or structures. Mythically, you do not pick up warding circles and carry them around.
So, the "mythic" side of things, if anything, tends towards keeping wards stationary, and that is certainly the default position of the game. It would be possible to say "Aegis doesn't move, but everything else can", or carve out an exception for Boundaries as we have for for Circle, but that just makes the game even more complex.
You can make a waterproof backpack, but it is like a real-world waterproof backpack, and you can put water in it. I'm not convinced that there is enough of a benefit here to justify increasing the complexity.
It's only made its appearance in LoH, as far as I know; many people who have no access to LoH are surprised when they hear about it. In Covenants, none of the "mobile" Hooks say anything about the Aegis, and so it seems that a "space-warping-mobile" covenant like Semita Errabunda should not be treated differently, in this regard, than a Covenant that moves in a more conventional way - like the example covenant moving on a flotilla of ships. Finally, in previous editions (I'm not sure if with the game you encompass those as well) the Aegis was explicitly mobile (see e.g. the two-ship hermetic expedition to Mythic Iceland, with a level 75 Aegis just barely resisting the lightning bolts of the Guardian Spirit).
That's sort of true. They stay fixed relative to their immediate environment, which sometimes does move. If they are inscribed on the floor of a ship's cabin, they stay attached to the floor of the ship's cabin. If they are inscribed at the centre of floating island, they move with the island. If they are inscribed on a bird's nest on top of a tree, they oscillate with the tree and the nest, just as they oscillate when on the top floor of a tower hit by a mild earthquake. And so on. I've never seen a single folklore situation where they are left attached to "absolute space" rather than to their immediate environment, when the latter moves.
Incidentally, note that in the case of warding circles (though not other wards, nor other type 2 circle effects) the mildest vibration in the local environment, under the current rules, breaks them, as the warded "space" moves ever so slightly out of its encompassing circle.
Hmm. I suspect I can find something more convincing. I am almost sure someone can
1 Like
You mean under David's proposal, right, rather than the current rules? The current rules include circles on sheets of parchment used to make a book you can flip through without the circle being broken.