As currently defined, it would seem that if an aegis is cast using a fence as a boundary then a mundane with a horse that pulls down the fence would destroy the aegis. Is this intentional or simply something that hasn't been considered?
There is actually another thread going on right now about a huge part of this. I'm pretty sure that thread is what propelled these questions to where you found them. Look here:
Not quite. See LoH p.123 box A Note on Boundary Effects. So, a fence pulled down or moved does not affect an Aegis any more, once it is cast. Making the Aegis a type 1 spell, this is of course reinforced.
I think that silveroak means, with "current definition", the current proposal by David Chart (that invalidates the LoH insert): a Boundary ceases to exist for magical purposes when it is moved.
SInce the Aegis is obviously of type 2 (it affects even creatures that enter the Aegis after casting, and only for as long as they stay in the Aegis), this would mean that an Aegis could be wiped out by a "sufficient" change in the Boundary demarcating it - a change that could be enacted by very mundane means.
Oh dear! See:
To take part in a discussion about rules changes, one needs to keep track of it. Right?
Hmm ... I think that part has been removed in the last iteration, but I would bet more on you being right than on me. I am definitely starting to lose track of the current version of things
Wards and Aegis all being of first type was likely removed in the last iteration, because it was needed for the discussion, but doesn't really belong to the rules about Containers.
@David_Chart: For clarity, it should appear directly in the description of Magical Wards (ArM5 p.114) and Aegis of the Hearth (ArM5 p.161f) instead.
The statement was never withdrawn, though.
Given that it is not included in the latest definition posted 1 day ago, the general impression is that it has been withdrawn even if it was not done so in whatever formal format you seem to believe is required.
Yes, I saw it. I will take it into account.
That sounds like a good reason not to use a fence/piece of string/chalk line on the ground as the Boundary for your Aegis.
But maybe that isn't how it would work.
It wasn't. However, it is up for discussion.
Wards on container targets are an odd case, because in order to work as they should, they have to affect things that are not in the target. Full logical consistency would say that Hermetic magic cannot do wards, but that's obviously the wrong way to go. Thus, we end up with hand-wavey explanations about affecting the space within the target, which tends to push towards type 1. However, you can be equally hand-wavey about type 2, so we could allow wards to be either type. Then you could ward a ship. Aegis is a special case, so it could be specified to be type 1, and thus unaffected by the disappearance of the Boundary.
Right now, these are all options. (And yes, this part would go in wards or Aegis.)
I have two issues with "it affects the space"- 1) if it affects the space then it should affect the space, not have to penetrate a tertiary target of something that enters the space. 2) the concept of space as a thing is a 20th century concept, and bringing it in to hand wave a problem just, from my perspective, makes a bigger problem.
I expect, that cleanly separating Aegis from wards in the errataed text makes both far easier to understand: readers don't have to derive properties of the quite complex Aegis from the manifold wards with its many possible Targets and purposes.
Wards should preserve ArM5 p.114 Magical Wards target and range clarifications, thus avoiding to track sweeping changes all over the ward spells in the books.
Given their variety, I see no general problem with container target ward spells of type 2. Whether one needs to block certain type 2 wards requires a detailed analysis still pending.
Type 2 wards of T: Structure - e. g. for ships and such - are quite vulnerable: breaching a single ward of the typical ward array (against diverse supernatural beings, fire, stones, salt water, ...) can destroy enough of the target structure to make the other wards fail too. Bringing down type 2 wards with PeVi magic is also possible.
So far type 2 spells and T: Boundary allowed to move don't mix well, because a boundary can be defined by just about everything - up to and including property deeds.
Still need a ruling on if the Aegis will even affect the spell casting of non-Hermetics since the text specifically talks about resisting/blocking spells cast by Magi. You have to go back to 2nd edition to find somewhere it was not written specifying Hermetics.
If it does affect non-Hermetic spells, then it should also affect Supernatural Abilities since they are the basis of the spells used by may non-Hermetic casters.
There are many things that must penetrate against their non-targets, so this shouldn't be an issue for wards. For example, Edge of the Razor must penetrate for the sword to cut someone even though that someone isn't the target.
Newton explicitly referred to "absolute space" and "relative space." While that was well before the 20th century, it was well after ArM5 so that doesn't help. However, Democritus, c. 400 BC, had empty space between his atoms. Parmenides and Zeno said void could not exist, while atomists disagreed and accepted empty space. So the concept had been debated over a millennium and a half before ArM5.
Yes, this would be good.
We know for certain that it does, though the spell itself isn't clear on this and you must look elsewhere. For example, HoH:MC p.22 specifies that it affects using Heartbeast, which isn't just non-Hermetic but also an Ability.
This needs to be specified in the AM5 book, which as written only specifies Hermetic spell casting. Expecting players to know some small passage in a different book to use a core component from the main book is not good design. What happens to groups that do not have HoH:MC? Tweaking the Aegis by removing the "Magi specific" text and including Supernatural Abilities within it would provide clarity.
The Heartbeast rules in HoH:MC p.22 are unique in their design, functioning completely different from the way the Aegis is written up. They involve a test that increases the difficulty of the roll by 1 per magnitude of spell/Aegis, compared to the text of Aegis which is a -1 penalty to the roll for every 2 levels of the Aegis.
As it stands now, it says
- If any spell is cast toward the Aegis (originating from outside it) by any magus who was not involved in the Aegis ritual, the Aegis resists the spell.
- Magi who were not involved in the ritual and who cast spells within the Aegis must subtract half the level of the Aegis from all their Casting Totals.
This could be changed to something like
- If any spell or supernatural ability is cast toward the Aegis (originating from outside it) by anyone who was not involved in the Aegis ritual, the Aegis resists it.
- Anyone not involved in the ritual and who cast spells or uses supernatural abilities within the Aegis must subtract half the level of the Aegis from all their Casting Totals.
The AM5 book also specifies magical creatures, in addition to magi.
But agreed that if it is supposed to penalise all sorts of spells and powers it should say so - and if it is only supposed to penalise certain variants this should be made clear.
The effects on magical creatures just specify Penetration Totals. So it needs a small bit of clarity as well.
First "magical creatures" in general means beings associated with the Magic Realm (whether they have Might or not). While it is generally assumed to apply to all Realm associated beings since two paragraphs later the Aegis "Ward-like" effect applies to all creatures with Might that is still an assumption. What it is actually targeting should be "Realm associated" Powers, whether only Magic Realm associated or all Realm associated.
Second the reduction to Penetration Totals could be perceived as applying to all magical activities by magical creatures rather than specifically their Powers (which do not have a Casting Total, only a Penetration Total). This would allow them to cast spells or use supernatural abilities that do not need to penetrate with no penalty from the Aegis, which is not RAI I believe. The penalty they suffer should be clearly stated to apply to Powers, while the normal Aegis affect on spells and supernatural abilities should apply to their use of such.
Magi with the Virtue Mythic Blood gain a Power as part of that Virtue, though its text calls it a "special magic feat". This is understandable since Powers were not codified until later when the varies Realms of Power books came out.
My group spent a lot of time breaking this down and codifying it for our Saga. Part of our decisions can be seen in my saga specific HR thread (though I tried to remove most of the clarifications from it when posted, due to raw size). In general we went with what we thought were RAI. Things that are not RAW/RAI are specific to Breakthroughs that happen before or in play. One of the things we were very specific about is that the Aegis is not a Ward, which seems to be the general consensus held by David as seen in resent purposed errata. The text of Aegis never says Ward and has notable differences such as affecting all beings of Might and having tokens which exempt them from its affects.
No disagreement on the need for clarity, now that I have read closer what the description of the Aegis actually says, as opposed to what I just assumed it meant.
My point about magical creatures being mentioned, is that since it is not only Hermetic spell-casting which is affected, it is very likely that the intention was that all sorts of spells and powers (and supernatural abilities) are affected.
Completely agreed that the Aegis of the Hearth is not a Ward.
Wards are derived from the Warding ability of the Columbae, as described in HoH:S, while the Aegis is based upon the Parma Magica ability.
While they have some things in common, they have different origins and work differently in many ways.
Yes, that was my groups consensus as well. We felt that the RAI were to affect all sorts of spells, supernatural abilities, and powers. The wording however could actually be taken to mean something completely different. Part of this goes to the fact that large portions of the text have been copy/pasted since at least 3rd Edition, with a small amount from 2nd Edition (I do not have a copy of 1st Edition to compare).