Formulaic spell to counterspell

Games Discussion Ars Magica
61
  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.

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

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

66

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.

67

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.

68

Oh, allright then :smiley:
Excellent and cool

69

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.

70

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.

71

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.

72

Hoo boy, and I thought I had this one in the bag...

I make of it the idea that you are just reaching again. You are taking spontaneous spell rules from one section and applying them in other areas that specifically are making exceptions to those rules.

  • It is an established FACT that a Fast Cast spell can counter/block other spells
  • It makes no difference if it is spontaneous or not, Fast Cast is Fast Cast
  • There is a rulling that clarifies the FCD rules in Societates, which clearly states that Vim may be used, bbut must abide by the specific rules of Vim.

[/quote]

Neither. "Cannot Affect Momentary" is in the description of that specific spell, not the general guideline.
And the spell I countered was of Sun Duration anyway.

Look, I am done. My spell is compleatly kosher according to RAW. Take it or leave it. I convinced my covenant mate, I am satisfied. Do what you want in your game :smiley:

Not to be rude, but I am just tired of this. I can state simple plain facts over and over again, but there is no point as I have already managed to save my spell in my game. Other people, feel free to steal my spell for your own games. Let it loose.

Okay, I am being Dk. If you want to continue debate, I am game. But now positions are reversed. You are on defense this time :laughing: