Formulaic spell to counterspell

Maybe but that was not what I was saying.

My argument don't rely on the fact that that you need to identify the form of the attack you want to counter. I didn't wanted to show that this knowledge was somehow necessary, then go on with my argument. That's not it.

My argument is that when weighing the two ways you can interpret the rules on the matter [(1) or 2)], the word "must" imply that 1) is the only possible solution of the two. That is because the interpretation with 2) is impossible with that word just there.

If 2) is RAW, you need to errata the word "must" two times on p. 83.

Also, you do realise the only evidence you can show me of your opinion is (Quote from Vortigen) : "I do assume that 'option 1' is a given, and that is because it is the only interpretation of these rules that I find logical." And you do realise you don't show how 2) is not logical ?

The way someone is used to know what is Perdo Vim is irrelevent when deciding what is RAW. Every one has different views, if you want to be 100% precise. This is as it should be, and really, RAW should not matter IMO. :stuck_out_tongue: Most important, if you are used to do things one way, don't change it while in a campaign ! That would be the worst...

The difficult thing for Marko's spell is that the RAW contradict each other. ArM5 pg83..."in order to create a fast-cast defense against magic, a mage must know the Hermatic form that governs the magic."

But in HoH:S pg 21 it says that PrVi may be used as a defense if you do not know the form. But these are rules in a sidebar for a Flamebeau game.

Give that there is a general counterspell ( I know I used a bad word) in UtFo(form) I would rule that the ArM5 use of the word must and the existence of UtFo(form) override the fluffy statement of HoH:S for general defense. Your mileage may vary.

Marko's spell could be rewritten to take advantage of reducing the casting total rule for a general effect.

Very contrived. I simply don't understand their reasoning. All I can really do at this point is state plain facts over and over, and stare dumfounded when they are still unable to understand.

And it is for that game that I invented the spell :wink:
That renegade Jerbition who killed his covenant mate should have cast a level 20 spell at me, I would have had no chance of countering it. Seeing how much effort it took to barely deflect that spell, would you not agree that it qualified as "more difficult"? A Fast Cast Spontaneous Defnese would have been much easier and required less effort. But he had Quiet Magic, and I think that is your real issue. I beat your encounter and you were not expecting that :wink:

I would put forth the proposition that the word "Must" in that section is refering to Spontaneous defenses, finding the right combination for countering without using Vim.

That isn't what I meant earlier. I was refering to two separate guidelines for dispelling "any" magic, the formula in WoMS (going against level) and the formula in the guidelines (where the spell + a die needs to beat the oposing Casting Total). I would say going against Casting Total as opposed to Level is a fair compromise. It fits the concept of countering a spell as it is being cast. Realistically, this is the only time you will have a reliable casting total (an SG is not likely to calculate the casting totals of every pre-existing spell effect a character might happen to run into, it is easier to just use level). The gideline about reducing the opposing casting total is wierd. The guideline is there, but there are no examples of it ever being used anywhere (that I know of).

AND, right now in Light of Andorra (Ancient Days and Long Lost Nights), Inigo Xalbador of Flambeau is being ambushed by Metron of the Flaming Shadows! Metron chucked a "Lancea Magica" at him (another of my Perdo Vim spells that makes all the squimish people out there cringe). Inigo's response was to Fast Cast a Spontaneous Perdo Vim counter. My own methods :smiley:. I am proud of the Flambeau magi I have trained. I have not crunched the numbers yet because I just got into work (and first thing i do when I get to work is check the Atlas Forums :laughing:). But I point it out as an example of actual practice as opposed to mere theory. Check it out, and I will keep you posted as to how the numbers crunch out :wink:

Practice and rules are different things. In hindsight, ( and as a SG I might add), the spell would not be allowed as written because there is already a precedence spell in UtFo(Form) which does what you want but needs a form as per the rules ( the oft mentioned ArM5 pg 83). Your spell ignores the must know the form in the rules.

WoMS is a different kettle of fish and does not compare to your spell simply because it expressly forbids it use on Momentary spells thus making it moot from the point of a fast-cast defense. You are comparing apples to oranges IMHO. The better comparison is UtFo(Form).

Using precedence of another SG is unmissable without a discussion with the GM on why it works over my ruling. As I said before...Your mileage may vary.

I am the SG in that one. It worked, Inigo countered the Lancea Magica. It really has nothing to do with how powerful the spell is. It is all about speed.

And why, pray-tell why are you stuck on this "must know the Form" bit? Totally different spell. That is for Fast Cast Spontaneous Defenses. This is a Formulaic spell with a specific function, Perdo-Vim, using the more restrictive and more difficult guidline against any magic, regardless of Form. Why do I need to know Form when I am using a spell designed against all forms?

And, that spell as written was presented to Max (the ASG), the entire Novus Mane troupe, and even the Atlas Forums! It was wholeheartedly approved as written, and other characters in the game have now started learning it. In fact, Roberto owes you a season of teaching you that spell whenever you are ready. Fair is fair, you can use it, I can use it, the bad guy can use it, some one can use it to counter your use of it, and so forth and so on.

Original presentation on the Forums:

Presentation to the Novus Mane Troupe:

A Spont PeVi counterspell as a defense against an enemy using a Lancea Magica spell in an attempt to take down the hero's Parma:

And this myth was already debunked earlier, why are you still resorting to it?

Since the rules seem to support both sides dependent on which pages you favor, can we just write this up as a Your Saga May Vary issue and move on? I don't think there's any constructive discussion going on here any more.

Unfortuneatly no. I never give up until everyone admits I am right :laughing:
Just being smarmy there. Look, some of us are in the same game where this spell exists, and we are on opposite sides of the issue. Since we play on-line and live hundreds (if not thousands) of miles apart, this is the only place we have to discuss this. And I like debating Ars Magica with my international peers. Feel free to join in, watch, or ignore us.

Find me another section of the ArM5 book that covers magical counterspells that is not a ward and I will surrender. If it could be done why is there a counterspell for each form and not the be all end all PrVi counterspell?

Debunk it again for me. WoMS can not be used as a defense against spells of a Momentary duration thus implying that it only has effect on existing spell effects. UtFo(form) does not have that problem. Why does WoMS have that limitation and UtFo(form) does not?

this would be much clearer if "spell effect" was defined better. If the spell effect of PoF is to light you on fire then your counterspell would not work because there is no effect to cancel until you are lite on fire. If, as you have implied, the effect hangs in the air waiting for you to counter it then you have something.

  1. I pointed out Societates, which adds to and clarifies the situation.
  2. The PeVi spell specific to Form is much easier. They are two different ways to do the same thing. It just seems super obvious, and there is a limited amout of space on a page. I mean it is super-super obvious to me. WoMS is an example of PeVi good against all forms.

The words "expressly forbid" appear no where in the description of that spell. It does say existing effects (not an implication, it does say this outright). For my argument that does not matter. The opposing spell exists at the moment it is being countered. The two are simualtaneous if you make your Fast Casting roll.

Well, "hanging in air" is a concept we agreed upon back a few months ago when the spell was initially presented to the Novus Mane troupe. More so, though, I want to emphicize the "simualtaneous" concept.

But according to your argument, no counterspell of any kind could ever work ever. Not UtFoF, not a FCSD, nothing. The entire concept is based on "you cast a spell, I fast cast an interrupt the spell". Interrupting could be imposing a barrier, disappearing, using Perdo Vim, or anything that a FCSD does.

I think I understand now but you will still not like it. I look back over your evidence and think that your spell is weaker than I thought. Your PrVi15 spell could counter 7+SD vs casting total of the other spell.

It is stronger to use UtFo(form) because it acts like the magical defense from pg 83. if you get to 1/2 the spell level you can deflect the incoming spell.

The deflect all spell effects with a casting total less than 1/2 the Vim spell + stress die.

In our combat long ago, the casting total for the MuMe spell was 28 ( off the top of my head). Just casting you spell at 25 ( because of the fast cast) then you would roll 7+SD and need a 28>.

So yes, PrVi can counter any magic but you would have to be a Vim master to really make use of it.

It is a lot weaker than you are presuming. Not sure about your math though. I wasn't going against Casting Total, I was going against Level. His spell was level 15 and so was mine. But I needed to roll twice his level. The guideline is (level of spell + 4 magnitudes + a stress die). Two of those 4 magnitudes are used to take the Range up to Voice, and the other two are where the +10 bonus comes from. Every magnitude of the opposing spell adds +10 to the ease factor, so TtTT is useful against low level spells, bbut against higher level spells I would need to resort to UtFoF. The sheer amount of effort I had to put into that encounter (2 points of Confidence and three Fatigue levels) is what made me realize that it is useless in Dimicatio. I would need a level 50 version and an incredibly lucky roll to counter the fan favorite "Ball of Abysmal Flame".

I was lucky that the Jerbiton renegade used a level 15 spell. Level 20 and I would have been toasted.

I will recheck maths at home later. But again, it is not about power level. It is all about speed.

Yes but WoMS does not follow the PrVi guidelines, which calls for casting total and not spell level. Any new spell would be based on the guidelines and not a legacy spell.

This errata might be of use to solve your problem here:

Then maybe we can move beyond this "PeVi cannot affect Momentary spells" rut which, as I have shown already, is a legacy from the time where there were "Instant" and "Permanent" spells and is not reflected anywhere in the guidelines.

Okay, I am sitting at home looking at the core rules.
Jebrick is right. The description of WoMS does indeed say that it “does not affect spells of a Momentary Duration”.
This is a point against me. Sloppy. This is why I put up a Perpetual Smurf Parma a while ago. The word “forbid” is never used, only that this particular spell cannot be used the way that I stated for countering Momentary spells (which is what you want 90% of the time when trying to fast cast a counter spell).

For reference, as someone stated earlier, 4th edition WoMS states that it “does not affect spells of an Instant Duration”. This says to me that the intent of the wording was to say you couldn’t undo ritual momentary effects. However, we are not trying to second guess the writers here, just what the text actually says. I think it was an oversight, but I cannot prove it for absolute.

UtFo(F) has no such stipulation. This spell is new to fifth edition, not revised or rewritten from an earlier edition. It carries no legacy baggage. This is a point for both sides. It does not contradict that Perdo Vim can be used as a counter, and it does not contradict Jebrick’s assertion that you must rely on specific Form spells. It affirms neither, but it is a place of refuge for both sides.

Now, let us look at Base Formulae. The Guidelines give us three different formulas, two based on Canceling an opposing spell and one based on Reducing an opposing Casting Total. WoMS, that old legacy, uses a different formula not listed in the guidelines, and the guidelines mention nothing about Momentary effects. So that makes 4 formulae altogether.

(Paraphrased) They are…
[color=white]……..1. “Dispel effects of a “specific type*”; if you can roll higher than its level on a stress die + (Base Level + 4 magnitudes)
[color=white]……..2. “Dispel any magical effect”, if you can roll higher than twice the casting total on a stress die + (Base Level + 4 magnitudes)
[color=white]……..3. Reduce an opposing casting total by half (Base level + 2 magnitudes) of this spell, provided it Penetrates the magic resistance of the opposing caster. This one is strange, there are no precedent or example spells based on this formula.
[color=white]……..4. The Legacy Formula in WoMS, Cancel the effects of a spell; as long as you can roll twice its level on a stress die + (Base Level + 4 magnitudes). In the case of WoMS, the 4 magnitudes are used on Range (+2 Voice) and Target (+2 Room). Let’s not touch the Room part, that is a subject of debate in another current thread. Now, notice that this combines Guidelines # 1 & 2. It bases the ease factor on the level of the opposing spell like #1, yet like #2 it requires it to be twice as high. Compared to #2, it has an advantage against low level spells where the casting total is usually higher than the level, but it is disadvantaged versus higher level spells where the casting total is usually lower than the level.

Something in the Guidelines is wrong, or something in WoMS is wrong (besides Room).

But I hope I can get everyone to agree on two points..
First, that Perdo Vim of the “appropriate level and design” is good against any magic,
And second
If it is of the appropriate level and design, a Formulaic Perdo Vim spell can indeed be fast cast to counter an incoming spell.

Oh, allright then :smiley:
Excellent and cool

It took me too long to connect the dots from ArM5 pg83 --> HoH:s pg 21 -->ArM5pg 160. I blame work and multitasking ( and 2 little girls that do not let me have a train of thought longer than 2 dots).

Marko is correct in his idea for the spell. I now understand the penalty for not having the form for defense. If you have the form your PrVi spell can deflect any spell equal to or lower then your PrVi level. You can negate it with double the level. ( spell lvl + SD ) Without the form you can only negate which means you must roll double the level of the spell you are trying to defend.

With his spell at lvl 15 he must roll a 30 (15 + SD) to negate a lvl 15 spell. It will negate any magic but not very usable at spells higher than 15.

This is a good demonstration on the Perdo Vim guidelines. You show that the Perdo Vim guideline is, as you say, "good against any magic".

But are we talking about what Perdo Vim can do, or what are the rules for fast-casting defense against magic ?
I think it's the second, but according to the RAW, you can only disrupt another's action using the FCD rules found in p.83. So you need those rules if you want to use PeVi as a FCD. They are special rules used to counter an action. And those rules use the word "must", just to remember you my argument.
Your conclusion is incompatible with those rules: what do you make of that?

I understand your point, but it doesn't show that the author didn't wanted to keep that sentence in the rules with it's other and new meaning. It's a good exemple of the genetic fallacy: "It meant something precise in the 4th edition, so the meaning in 5th ed. will be the same, even if the wording have changed."
Once again, this mean you need to errata either ArM or HoH:S and a spell. Take your pick.

I was not doing the PrVi can not effect momentary. I was saying that WoMS can not effect momentary and that is what he based his spell on.

But I am beyond that now. I understand the PrVi fast cast defense.