The Immaculate Beast got errataed away a couple days ago.
Not clear to me. What counts as physically breaking the ring? Walking in or out? Shattering the stone the ring is carved into? Laying a straw across the chalk outline that is the ring? It's obvious that 'breaking' the ring is massively ambiguous. But saying that the 'breaking' must be 'physical' just means that it isn't spiritual, which was already obvious and hence doesn't help with the ambiguity.
It would never have crossed my mind that that was a mistake if someone on this list hadn't suggested that it was. Why is this thought to be a mistake?
until/bloodline... not core book
They are core book, they're part of the core description of Faerie Magic/Merinita Outer Mystery at the end of the magic chapter, and IIRC the questions raised had nothing to do with Mystery Cults.
All targets inside the circle, at the time of casting are affected.
No, the text is still ambiguous. "The spell affects everything within a ring drawn by the mage at the time of casting." The only clear thing is that a ring is drawn at the time of casting; whether the spell affects things which move into the circle is not clear. Least it's not to me, and wasn't to you.
And you aren't a jerk. Anything multiple regular posters to this board find unclear is unclear to multiple people, and worth noting.
I never thought this was unclear, until now. I believe it means "The spell affects all targets that are inside the circle when the spell is cast." The sentence describes the targets affected, not when the caster must draw the circle. The circle does not need to be drawn at the time of casting. There is a specific example stating as much. A pre-existing circle can be used, but must be traced by the caster.
That is my understanding as well.
Ring also says "ring drawn at the time of casting", then expands to say yes, the ring can be drawn before, but it still has to be traced at the time of casting. So that doesn't clear up the targetting.
Forgive me if I'm putting words in people's mouths, but I believe the question is about subjects moving into the ring once the spell is cast, not the subjects already in the ring.
Well "The spell affects all targets that are inside the circle when the spell is cast" were these targets inside the circle when the spell was cast?
I'm not seeing where the ambiguity is?
Because that's not the wording, Erik. The wording is "The spell affects everything within a ring drawn by the mage at the time of casting" and it's clear the ring has to be traced out at the time of casting, so it's not clear that "at the time of casting" binds to "everything within" as well as "a ring drawn".
OK, I'm in a hurry so sorry if the following isn't coherent or if I missed something.
My complaint was that the text wasn't precise. I stand by that assertion, but agree the situation isn't that bad here. It can be ommitted.
My main problem with the text is that it's imprecise, not with the title. Read the first sentence and tell me it doesn't say you can't use more raw vis in a single season than Magic Theory x 2 to cast Ritual Spells.
The rule should be rewritten to make it mean what it is meant to mean, to make it apply to only and all the cases where it should apply.
While "physicaly broken" is open to interpreation, it is relatively golden in comparison with some of the more outragous interpreations like casting something with a ring duration when the ring is covered with dirt, casting things using actual rings to wear spells with infinite duration, and so on. Too many loose holes and need for interpretations IMO, the duration should be clarified.
For an errata list of the core rules, sure.
The rules state that you get one simple die of WP upon entering Twilight. The example doesn't show this. It is also unclear whether the simple die of WP should be added when determining the effects of twilight; David Chart ruled that officially it did, but regardless I think the discussion made it very obvious that it isn't clear.
Inventing a spell also takes a season. Yet it can be done in less. If what you say is the intention that's fine, but please make a note of it somewhere. As it is, it is unclear.
Ambiguity in the setting is great. Ambiguity in the rules less so. I think such a thing shouldn't be left undefined, the rules should address practicing with Ritual spells if they address practicing with Formulaic spells. I say leave the issue.
Boy am I jerk. It means 'at the time of casting'. I feel the description as a whole, is self explanitory.
[/quote]
I think it isn't self explanitory. It isn't clear to me. I can't refer to books right now, but I'm pretty sure there are cannon spells that use the target to create circles that affect everything that enters the circle; I believe a healing spell, I'm not sure.
Don't you agree that "The spell affects all targets that are inside the circle when the spell is cast." is clearer? The rules should be clear.
Core book. Definitely core. And the problems (what is the "primary target" and "no warping") are with understanding what these categories do, not with Mystery Cults or any supplement.
Technically true, but definitely something to be considered from the point of view of line continuity and consistency. Again, I recommend mentioning the issue.
Yes. Much like other issues it isn't necesarily that the rules don't say what they are meant to say but rahter that they are not saying it clearly enough.
Another issues I think bears noting is Longevity Potions: Does the MT x 2 raw vis limit apply? (and to rebrewing?) Does the ritual take a season or a short time (self-contradticting!)?
At the risk being a total ass, the rules should be clear to the point where their interpreation is obvious. Most of the problems above aren't with the rules, it is with their clarity. I believe such issues should be addressed by errata, which is why I'm suggesting to keep all the above issues in the summation.
Now I really have to go. 
Does anyone have the book available? I know it doesn't say "mage," but I'm unsure about the veracity of the remaining quote.
I stand by my interpretation that the spell affects what is in the ring when it is cast. It doesn't affect things that enter the ring later. It's not a perpetual magic device where you cast a spell once and forever you get to stick things in it to enjoy the effect. If the thing stays in the ring, it enjoys the effect--it doesn't get to work if they leave and not if they come in after the spell is cast. The target is the things in the circle not all things that might ever be in the circle.
This is pretty obvious to me based on the sentence and the following example that states that the ring doesn't have to be drawn at the time of casting. Your application of "at the time of casting" to "a ring drawn" is inaccurate. The sentence is describing what the spell affects not when the ring needs to be drawn.
I typed that quote from the book, while looking at the book, except for my gender-neutral instincts turning magus into mage. The sentence continues to talk about the spell ending if the circle is broken, even if the spell had longer duration (circles don't have to use Ring duration, they just work well together.)
I'd note that a Circle ward affects anything outside the circle. Boundary spells such as Poisoning the Will and the Shrouded Glen affect visitors; of course they're Boundary and Ritual, but is Ritual for sustained effect or just for sheer size? Notes of a Delightful Sound causes all sounds in a Room to be sonorous. Well Without Light suppresses light in a Structure for Sun, I think including new light (light-creating spells have to overcome the Well). OTOH, Incantation of Putrid Wine only affects liquids in the Room when it is cast, but they stay putrid when removed from the room, while those who leave Poisoning the Will escape its effects.
This question really extends to Room, Structure, and Boundary as well -- does someone who walks into a room with a spell on it get affected by the spell? The canon examples seem literally ambivalent. Once you've decided that (hah), is a Circle more like a tiny Group or a tiny and improv Room or Boundary?
There aren't many sample spells with Room/Structure/Boundary targets, and no non-warding Circles.
[size=150]*** Hard BUMP ***[/size]
A couple of further errata suggestions. Might aswell keep them together and easy to find.
Core book:
Affinity with (Ability)(p. 40): Replace "Study Total" with "Advancement Total".
Affinity with (Art)(p. 40): Replace "Study Total" with "Advancement Total".
Ancient Magic:
Araquiel's Legacy (p. 67): Replace "Herbam" with "Terram".
I may be a bit of a prick at times, but this thign popped up, and iof course I jumpedf up to the last of the post to check out whatever the "Current" trend was in questions and what not just for my own edification.
IT seemd to me very near the end. that a certain someone was trying to get people to interpret the rules in a fashion that would be most adventageous to them, and prove a point they wanted to make to someone else by having somethign they could point to that says "See, I was rikght!"
Being imminently guilty of this myself, I can spot that sort of thing a mile away.
Let's just say I found the respponses to the .. uh.. responses to be nit-picky at best. And they very much reminded me of Bill CLinton asking what the prosectguro of "is is".
Circle is not ambigous. as far as any more or less straight forward person reads it. IT covers an area drawn by the magi at the time of casting, and effects those inside. I fail to see anywhere this is "Ambiguous".
Permanent circles existing or not, it still states they have to draw SOMETHING when the spell is cast. There's no other wording anywhere that I can find. or has been pointed out that says otherwise. It does say "See Ring above for restrictions" Do so.
"This question really extends to Room, Structure, and Boundary as well -- does someone who walks into a room with a spell on it get affected by the spell? The canon examples seem literally ambivalent. Once you've decided that (hah), is a Circle more like a tiny Group or a tiny and improv Room or Boundary? "
Again. there's no ambiguity whatsoever. What does Circle say? HOwever large it is drawn is however large it is. Period. If something breaks it, the spell goes poof.
ONce again... "It does say 'See Ring above for restrictions' Do so."
How do you break a ring, Prystus?
Example: I create a circle of stone with a CrTe spell. I trace this ring while casting a ward against demons.
Would moving the ring with a ReTe spell "break" the ring?
Would a tree falling over it?
Would a demon stepping over it?
Or would it require the actual stone circle to fracture?
Thye stone fracturing. I bet a tree falling on it will smash the ring of stone unless it is extremely solid. Stone is hard, but brittle 
Cheers,
Xavi
I've had these little quibbles mouldering on my hard drive for nearly two years. It's about time I did something with them.
p26 The Guernicus template has the Hermetic Prestige virtue, but no Reputation to go with it.
(I think it makes perfect sense for a newly-gauntleted Quaesitor to have prestige without a strong personal reputation, but that doesn't fit the game mechanics.)
p28 The Verditius template has the Dwarf flaw, but is size 0.
I think the characteristics & wound penalties are correct for a dwarf.
p177 Missile Weapon Table: the Defense column in the table is entitled 'Def', but the legend calls it 'Dfn'.
p183 Realm Auras box: for mystic Might read mythic Might.
Index: Fatigue levels doesn't list p178, which is the main place they're described
Index: Medieval paradigm given as p95. The Paradigm is not described on this page, or indeed anwhere.
These two will be added to the errata; thanks. (The others are not errata material, just typos.)
I am not completely certain about what's errata and what's not, but did you consider these:
I know they are probably typos or hick ups, but at the same time I know the first two caused some confusion from posters here and that they mirror exact similar erratas alreay on the list.
The 3rd one is my own impression - if it is correct I expect that it is not necessarily picked up by readers as a random typo.
Is the lack of Movement Rates an errata?
I noticed that even in the Beast Design section of HoH:MC ,
that no movement rates were given for any creature type.