Wow - it's not every day that I get to use the word palimpsest!
To dispel an effect that hasn't taken effect yet.
As has been pointed out above, that is certainly one interpretation.
"Specialist"?! One decent sized PeVi spell and 5 xp into Mastery:Fastcasting will stop most anything, by your argument.
But your assumption that because PeVi dispells effects, therefore it can be used as Fast-Cast Spell Defense, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "It's legit because it clearly works." That is not "proof", nor anything we haven't heard, nor hardly convincing.
Opinions clearly differ as to whether an "effect" is the same as a spell that is being cast. Every PeVi Guideline but one mentions "effects" - and that one exception specifically mentions "casting", as different from effects - so being effective in this instance is simply not as clear as you would have us believe.
And I'll repeat, because no one has addressed this - in other rules, if there is one sweeping Art or Combination, it's specified. Nowhere in the Fast-Cast rules is this mentioned.
You can keep repeating the same things until House Flambeau freezes over - but until you present some argument against at least those two points, it's at best a draw.
Why, if PeVi is the "cure all", was it not mentioned as such.
If PeVi guidelines distinguish between effects and casting, why are you not using the guideline that specifically refers to casting?
You are taking a simulationist approach which just isn't supported by the rules. Nowhere is there a phase-by-phase description of how magic takes effect, nor of when it is too early and when it is too late to counter a spell. Just like the exact length of a Momentary-duration spell is undescribed, but known to be enough to take one action (create rabbit, pull rabbit out of hat, briefly show rabbit around, put rabbit back in hat, rabbit gone), the fast-casting rules are there to determine whether you can time your spell just right to counter another action, be it a physical action or a spell.
This is a game that allows free cosmetic effects in spells which other games would have you pay for, a game where you can have Certamen phantasms that exhaust you, even though you may not know any Creo Imaginem or Perdo Corpus. If you succeed in fast-casting, you cast the spell at the right time. Whether that means just before, just when or just after the spell has been cast is, to me, irrelevant. You've succeeded and that's it.
You need to have a spell that has twice the level of the spell you are trying to affect, or one spell per form of the level of the spell you are trying to affect. Alternatively, I can just hit you with a casting total penalty and hope it's enough to make you fail casting your spell.
Yes, if you have a big enough dispel spell which you can, you'll be able to stop most anything. Then again, a big enough Parma works too.
Because fast-casting is explicitly an option that affects spontaneous magic, or specifically-mastered formulaic magic. The spells still have their normal effects. I could try fast-casting a BOAF at you and hope you fail your concentration roll. Fast-casting rules add a way to determine if a random, undefined spell is powerful enough to stop whatever's coming at you to avoid situations like "I'll just create a small pebble right on the path of the Pilum of Fire, thereby intercepting it... there, CrTe 5 (or whatever), I'm safe."
If I can fast-cast Leap of Homecoming, your spell is going to miss me regardless of its level or power.
Because it didn't have to. Fast-casting doesn't eliminate the fast-cast spell normal effects. PeVi dispels magic, so an appropriately-timed PeVi will dispel the spell you're casting at me.
You are the one arguing that Vim is not appropriate to affect spells...
Because Vim is more general than just affecting Hermetic spells, and can also affect Supernatural powers in exactly the same way.
You edited them in. Your first post only had your comment about the palimpsets, then you added the comment I first replied to, and only later the questions you now refer to.
You seem stuck on that point, and this probably explains your confusion.
You are not dispeling it an effect that hasn't taken effect yet. You are dispelling an effect at the same time as it is taking effect. A simualtaneous moment. It a way, yes, it is before the mechanics of the effect are resolved. Sort of an "interupt" action (which is what a Fast Cast spell is supposed to be).
No, Mastery and a high enough of a level. Which can get pretty difficult pretty quickly. Counter magic such as this is only dangerous in the hands of a PeVi specialist, for at low levels it is not very efficient or effective.
That is a weak defensive tactic CH. You can do better than that. Your theory is the circular logic. "I don't like it because it cannot work, it cannot work because I don't like it".
I say it is, and feel that you are using wording to create obscurity.
I refer you again to Dimicato, which states Vim spells use normal Vim guidelines, and the normal Vim guidelines are self evident in their regards to being able to counter magic. Vim affects anything. I suppose you could make a Rego Vim or a Muto Vim counterspell as well.
It is not about what Vim can or cannot do. It is all about what a Fast Cast spell can or cannot do. Is it possible to time it just right? I say it is.
Some Flambeau magi like it frozen, the Perdo Ignem specists
It is. The plain interpretation of the Perdo Vim guidelines are the details of this plain and obvious fact.
The spell in question is using the exact guidelines as presented in the spell "Winds of Mundane Silence". But if you want me to go up against the casting score, no sweat. It is often lower than the level of the opposing spell. Sometimes higher. If I was in a game with you as SG, I would compromise that way. But I prefer to use the WoMS guidelines. They are more venerable, and there are no examples using the guideline you are refering to.
Yes, and note that Difficult does not mean impossible. It just means Difficult. If I identify the Form, then I can use an easy counter (UtF of (Form)), or the much easier FCSD (Fast Cast Spontaneous Defence). Using a generic PeVi dispel is more difficult that either of these.
A cheap and easy counterspell is to suddenly turn Invisible before the caster can identify you as a target, also requiring a Fast Cast if timed at the moment the opposition is casting at you. The opposing caster needs to sense the target . In this context, Imaginem is also good against anything, and the level does not need to be compared to the level of the opposing spell at all
I'll repeat because this has obviously been overlooked:
Most of your posts, Vortigern, Fruny, Markoko, assume we accept 1) is exact. But to show this is the case should be the conclusion of an argumentation, not a postulate. Why didn't you reacted on that?
The last Cuchulainshound's posts only tries to counter your arguments.
Let's see how it is possible to see both interpretations in the rules.
A) Those who read the "dispell" guidelines in PeVi as being able to both counterspells and cancel out existing effect will choose 1) over 2);
B) Those who read existing effect and spell as it is being cast as two different things; those think that the p.83 counterspells rules are specifically designed as rules to counter spell as they are being cast, and that PeVi "dispell" guidelines are about cancelling out existing effect. Those one choose 2) over 1) Conceptually, cancelling out an existing effect is different than counterspelling a spell as it is being cast. The word "dispell", in the PeVi guidelines, can mean both ideas, or one over the other. I propose this as the reasons why one would choose either A) or B):
A) players thinks the specific rules to counter spells as they are being cast (found in p.83) as a way to do that alongside the PeVi guidelines about "dispell". Both ways can acheive the same thing for you.
B) players thinks the fact that there is specific rules to counter a spell as it is being cast (p.83) means that this is the exclusive way to acheive that. Thus, the meaning of "dispell" in the PeVi guideline needs to exclude countering spell as they are being cast.
In suport of my point of view of the RAW, option 2) and B), I can bring in arguments.
I can show them for all to see just here. I don't need to start with the assumption that my 2) above is right and your 1) is false. This is because I have an argument to show, and 2) will be my conclusion.
I will do that just now. Bare with me, I start with a simple quote from ArM5, and finish with option 2).
Let's look at those famous rules of FCSD found in page 83 of ArM5.
They are in the second column, last paragraph, and onward 4 paragraphs further. Those rules that are related to "FCSD against magic". The argument is as follow:
Those rules mentions that "In order to create a fast-cast defense against magic, that a maga must know The Hermetic Form that govern that magic." (p.83). Here is how I understand this:
The first part of the sentence: "In order to create a fast-cast defense against magic, ..." -> Let's notice so far that the only way to counter a spell is to make a fast-cast defense against magic. No one disputed this as of now. That part of the sentence doesn't tell if is to be spontaneous or formulaic, PeVi or not, etc, at that point. It just say what we all agreed on: you need to fast-cast a defense. More important, take good note that this rule here concern all kind of fast-cast defenses, it does not say that the rules found here exclude the PeVi guidelines. It concern any and all fast-cast defenses.
The second part of the sentence:"...that a maga must know The Hermetic Form that govern that magic."->I ask the question: Why the use of the word "must" ? The rules use the word "must" another time just after that: go read it. So this is not a mistake. So why "must"?
First, "must" means that it is necessary, in other words, you can't do "a fast-cast defense against magic" without it. Why is that so ? Because you need to choose Te and Fo specifically against that effect.
Second, why would that be in the rules, if you could use PeVi (the like of WoMS) to counter any and all magic ? It make no sense at all. And this is not a trivial exception: I mean, all hermetic magus can use Perdo Vim! Yes we can!
Now we can only understand the whole sentence in this way: "any and all fast-cast defenses against magic must take into account the knowledge of the form of the spell to be countered."
Conclusion of the argument: The meaning of that sentence can only means that there is no possible way to counter any and all spells, because it would mean you must not know the form. Thus, the PeVi guidelines that can dispell any and all magic cannot be used for fast-case defense because if that were the case it would contradict this :"In order to create a fast-cast defense against magic, that a maga must know The Hermetic Form that govern that magic." (p.83).
This clearly show the intent of the fast-case defense against magic rules as excluding the use of WoMS, (as an exemple), and spontaneous or formulaic - to be used to counter a spell as it is being cast. WoMS could be used to cancel a ReMe spell used to control your grogs, but not a PoF used to kill them, as an exemple of this.
As a sidenote, it also means that either ArM5 p.83 or HoH:S p. 21 needs to be "errataed". Or at least HoH:S p.21 to be clarified.
(Nice catch, I! I am envious I had not spotted that myself. Respect!)
I edited several times in succession - for typos at the very last, among other things. I believe I had included the questions early on, as your post was not there at the time. My last edit was not the questions, but they may have been a "cross-edit" effect, where I included them while you were typing something up.
The need to know the form of the incoming spell as one begins to fast cast is, practically speaking IMO, there to provide the average Magus ( a non-vim specialist say. ) the opportunity to conceive in some way of an applicable defense.
Applying this as a hard and fast rule that you 'May Not' in some way counter someone's attack on you unless you somehow first identify it's form is not logical to me.
I would say that means you are therefore simply challenged ( as implied in the statement in the Dimicatio sidebar. ) to thereafter come up with an applicable defense. i.e. you don't have the quite helpful and leading information of the attack's form.
What would you do if a player failed their attempt to identify the form of an incoming spell and decided to cast a defense anyway? And if that defense, through whatever intuition, was applicable to the spell after all?
I would say it should work, because it was well timed and applicable, and good guessing to boot.
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. I find it quite a stretch to say, in line with your reasoning, that a Perdo Vim specialist should be no better at countering incoming hostile magics than anyone else. That is counter intuitive.
I mean no offense but the logic that is being displayed here to 'disprove' the acceptability of formulaic ( or more specifically Vim ) counterspells seems to me to be a bit contrived. By that I mean constructed after the initial reaction to disliking the concept for other reasons.
The balking appears to be at exactly that, the efficacy of Perdo Vim counterspelling, judging from this thread's history. And I, like Fruny, see that as part and parcel with Perdo Vim. That is exactly the specialist who should be breezing his way through incoming spells like they weren't even there. Making them 'not' be there is exactly what the guy is all about.
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. 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
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
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 . 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 ). 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
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
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.
. In this context, Imaginem is also good against anything, and the level does not need to be compared to the level of the opposing spell at all 
Most important, if you are used to do things one way, don't change it while in a campaign ! That would be the worst...