How does the Aegis work

I think, regardless, much like Persona, the Nightwalkers line probably isn't required in the base book definition of the Aegis since the Nightwalkers aren't defined in the base book. If necessary, it can go with the description of the Nightwalkers.

It might be obvious to you. It is not to me.
More generally, I may not have been clear.
What I am saying is

  1. I believe that the general rule on supernatural effects created or maintaned by Hedge wizards, by HMRE, is intended to make them fizzle out in an hostile Aegis unless they have (sufficient) Penetration.
  2. I believe that Nightwalkers were never meant to be a specific exception to the "standard" rules, though the author may have misread those rules.
  3. Objectively there is nothing in the paragraph that is technically incorrect if you assume that Nightwalker straying is blocked (in the absence of an improbably high Penetration score) by MR and Aegis, as per 1 and 2.

Besides, why would a straying nightwalker be stopped by an Aegis?
Their spirit can, as already noted, enter the Aegis just fine when residing in the body, so why wouldn't it be able to do that when away from the body?

For the same reason why a flying witch is stopped (or rather, here flight power fizzles), even though in principle a giant could hurl her bodily through an Aegis. Straying - keeping the phantasticum separate from the body - is a supernatural power. Thus it fizzles in any hostile Aegis unless the Nightwalker has sufficient penetration (highly improbable, but theoretically possible).

I see nothing in the description of Nightwalkers that suggest they are stopped by Magic Resistance - on the contrary they sometimes fight minor demons or ghosts or other creatures with Might, and they wouldn't be able to do that if they had to penetrate the MR of those, since a nightwalker typically has no Penetration.

The lack of any rule regarding MR should be read as meaning that they default to "standard" rules for supernatural effects without penetration. Also, note that Nightwalkers sometimes fight creatures that have Might, but they sometimes also fight with weapons.

I don't agree. Separating the phantasticum from the body, that requires a supernatural power. Once separated they remain separated until the phantasticum returns to the body - there is no supernatural power keeping them apart.
This is similar to Bjornaer and their Heartbeast - changing shape is a supernatural action, staying in either shape is not.

I think David included rules from all books when he wrote out his "In my opinion, these are the Aegis RAI" post. Since the post is not a proposed errata or even close to final text there is no need to argue what should be in core and what should be in other books. Right now we just need to point out areas we find unclear and areas we feel are a change.

Once he has that information he will post a new version of what he feels are the RAI, or at least a clarifying post. At this point he might or might not ask for more input before the next step. That step being some form of proposed errata.

We are on step 2, with many more steps before we get to an actual proposed errata including at least one "If unclear, go back to step #". There is no need to start arguing over the wording now and it is counter productive. If we just stick to answering individually the two questions he asked it will give him less to work through for the next step.

2 Likes

Yes, exactly.

Fine.

  • The lack of mention it blocks teleportation is a departure from the existing aegis or is unclear.
  • For sure, if a demon or spirit possesses a host and doesn't activate his powers, he can enter the aegis as part of the host (with other powers suppressed). It may be that it is even RAI in a story hook, but looking, I found a reference to the possessing demon sneaking in so long as he was not deploying his might and his powers were not used - but none that he would also be invited if the host was, so I'm not sure that this part of the sentence is RAI. Perhaps other forum members can confirm either way.
  • The aegis suppressing Parma Magica isn't RAI, and One Shot quoted you on that.
  • I think familiars were intended to be handled using the rules for beings of might on the one hand, and familiar enchantments to be handled like an item / spell effect. I don't believe there was any consideration given to whether familiar cords applied while the master was within the aegis but not the familiar, which is partly a philosophical problem about the nature of non-euclidean space in which the cords may reside and also about whether the cords stretch forever and can be seen in the middle of nowhere when the familiar and master are miles apart, or whether they are only seen when they are both present, because you have to consider these questions to decide if the cords are even within the aegis. Their nature is important as well - they can be interpreted as nothing more than arcane connections visible through second sight. If so, are arcane connections suppressed by the aegis?. As such, I don't think there is a RAI for such a situation right now. Regardless of the decision, it falls in the "change" category.
  • I think the only RAI for Talisman was the rule for items, and I don't think there was any consideration given to talisman attunements at all. Regardless of the decision, it falls in the "change" category.
  • I don't believe there is a RAI for longevity ritual either.
  • I find it weird that Longevity rituals, Familiar Bonds, Talisman Attunement and Parma Magica were singled out for being canceled, while a category was created for "Supernatural effects that have neither casting totals nor Penetration" which are completely unaffected by the aegis... The four pretty much fit the definition of that sentence. Maybe I'm missing the intent, but it seems inconsistent, or unclearly defined.
  • If you decide they need to be affected by the aegis, please consider that "cancel" is an ambiguous term, and could be interpreted as disenchanted, which would be a real problematic interpretation from my point of view, and a departure from RAI, and how Rego Vim typically works.
2 Likes

That sentence is in the paragraph concerning effects generated within the Aegis by non-natives, and is supposed to be limited to them. It does not apply to effects coming in from outside.

I repeat, slightly rephrased: Why is it assumed that the Aegis dispels effects?
It is ReVi, not PeVi - it should suppress, not remove effects.

So your familiar might not be able to enter, but you wouldn't loose all the time, effort, and vis invested into the bond. Similar for Longevity rituals etc.

1 Like

Oh, I see.
You are right, I misread your post, even though it was very clear.
I apologize.

Then, the only point of departure from the rules "as I understood were intended" (RAIUWI ?) is Nightwalkers being flatly "unaffected by the Aegis". Nightwalker mechanics are never explicitly mentioned to be an exception to the general mechanics. So, by my reading (others disagree), Nightwalkers:

  1. by and large may not stray into an Aegis (since they mostly lack Penetration),
  2. but they may mundanely walk into an Aegis (since they have no Might),
  3. and they may freely stray once within an Aegis (since they have no casting total).

I think that it's because it mentions that effects "fizzle out", which to me reads as "they are dissipated" rather than suppressed. Also, note that we read at the end that the Aegis should have a Perdo requisite, and the only reason it does not is that it's so special.

I do agree that it may be read your way, though to me it's not the most straightforward way to read it.

So, at the moment if a magus with a familiar enters a foreign Aegis, they get Schroedinger's Familiar, in a superposition of both bound and unbound states, until errata are issued?

Pretty sure nobody plays it that way… :thinking:

(Waits for @ezzelino to say that that's how they've always played it.)

I think the consensus is that no-one wants Aegis to dispel or disenchant any of Parma, Longevity, Familiar, or Talisman.

Some people would be happy for it to suppress them while the magus is within the foreign Aegis.

Others want no effect at all.

Thinking about this for consistency, regardless of what I said before, we could look at the following.

Aegis knocks down Parma, but the magus can easily raise it again once inside.

Aegis suppresses the effects of the Longevity Ritual, but as it is a ritual effect, it is not dispelled, and comes back when the magus leaves the Aegis.

Crossing the Aegis briefly breaks the link between a magus and his Talisman or Familiar, which is deeply disturbing, but the links reassert themselves almost immediately. However, effects created by the Talisman or Bonds are affected as any other effects from an item within the Aegis. If one of the pair is inside the Aegis and the other outside, then effects from the outside must penetrate the Aegis to have their effect. That means that effects targeting the one inside the Aegis are blocked. Familiars with Might are blocked by the Aegis as normal.

I don't for a moment think that this could be described as RAI, and certainly not RAW, but what do people think?

4 Likes

I'm 100% down with this. However I still don't see why the Aegis would knock down the Parma and allow it to be re-raised immediately after upon entry. I personally would not have it burst the parma at all.

2 Likes

Why does it suppress it and not dispell it? No other guideline seems to need a higher level or ritual to cancel an effect created by a ritual.

That said, I think rituals should be harder to dispell beyond a formulaic spell of the same level and Aegises should just ignore longevity rituals and think that is the easiest “fix”, Aegises just do not affect all of those things mentioned.

Yes! So the big question is: What is the purpose of the Aegis, and what are the limits under which Notatus invented his one-of-a-kind spell? I fear I can't help you there, as I have lost track of the current state of errata for good.

1 Like

:smiley:
No. We read the Familiar Bond as an enchantment of the magus-familiar pair (note that nothing says an enchanted "device" cannot be made by parts that are physically unconnected, as long as they are symbolically linked). So, if either of the two falls within a "container" (ritual) dispelling effect, the enchantment is dispelled. Of course, the dispel must penetrate first.

It depends!
From my point of view, the most important thing is consistency. I would not want the Aegis to treat familiar bonds or talismans differently from other enchantments. I also would not want to treat Parma differently from any other beneficial, non-ritual protection effect on a magus.

If that were granted, my preference for Aegis would be, from best to worst:
a) Keep out stuff (like Parma).
b) Suppress stuff.
c) Dispel stuff.
I think a) is superior, most of all because it ensures that the ensemble of magics on a creature, magus, device etc. stays together: this ensures that a magus never loses touch with his familiar, never sees his enchanted weelchair stop working etc. It also means magi-with-Might can more easily blend in. It means greater consistency, both with Parma and with the "keep creatures out" effect. And it avoids the same problems that 5th ed. Parma avoids: e.g. mundanely slinging boulders-mutoed-into-pebbles against an "Aegis protected" covenant is an ineffective strategy, unlike what happens with b) and c).

I think b) is better than c) mostly because you don't want an hostile (or suddenly-turned-hostile) Aegis to cause the "permanent" loss of things that are really important to the magus, such as his familiar. That said, for Longevity Rituals even temporary suppression might cause lasting damage both to the magus and to the LR itself, see below.

Again, I do not think these can be judged "in isolation", because consistency within the entire Aegis framework is important.

As for Longevity Rituals, as long as you have Aegis act in the same way on other "ritual" effects (not necessarily hermetic spells), consistency is preserved. But note as above that even temporary suppression might have nasty effects. If a LR is suppressed temporarily, the next Aging roll will not benefit from it, probably resulting in a poor result and bad effects for the magus ... including possibly a crisis, that would dispel the LR.

As for Parma, if you go with an Aegis that suppresses some stuff without dispelling it, I see no reason why it should not behave in that fashion consistently with all stuff, including with Parma. That said, I think that Parma as you described is both RAW, and not really problematic.

Familiar bonds ... I really do not see why you'd want them to go down in crossing, and come back live immediately afterwards. In my view, it creates an inconsistent, complicated situation that does not really solve any problems. If you go with the suppressing Aegis, why not just keep the bond suppressed throughout the stay in the Aegis?
Sure, it's going to be deeply disturbing, but that's good: if you have a familiar in an hostile Aegis, you want an invitation as soon as possible, and/or you want to leave as soon as possible.

Huh? That is flat-out contradicted by the guidelines. The normal PeVi guidelines are insufficient to undo a Longevity Ritual. You need to use a Ritual disenchanting guideline to undo a Longevity Ritual. Take a look at HoH:TL p.75:

Gen: Dispel a specific type of enchantment... such as... Longevity Rituals... Spell must be a ritual.

This places the Longevity Ritual as an enchantment rather than as a Ritual spell, agreeing with the season of enchanting and the MT limit on vis. Only the focus itself, used to reactivate it, is a ritual and subject to the TeFo vis limits, rather than the whole of the Longevity Ritual. That's also why the reactivation can be done so quickly: you're not redoing the whole Longevity Ritual, just reactivating what still exists but has lost its effectiveness.

But David's comment should not include "but as a it is a ritual effect." It should say "but as it is an enchantment."

Designing a LR is a seasonal activity, with vis limited by MT. Casting a LR is a ritual action, with vis limited by Arts.

Clever, interesting reading ... but I'm not sure I 100% agree with it, nor that was ever really intended to be that way. For example, it would mean that if someone really dispels a LR (via a dispelling Ritual, or some non-Hermetic effect), the victim must "recreate" the Ritual spending a season and being subject to the MT limit on vis. This is not necessarily bad, but I believe it's not the way things work.

That said, I think I would be ok if things were explicitly stated to work this way.

As currently written, the aegis is not a defense against all magic entering the covenant. It protects against:
1)spells cast from the outside with a target inside the aegis if not cast by an authorized magus
2) creatures with might entering the aegis without invitation.
3) Unauthorized people from casting spells within the aegis
4) spells cast by items outside the aegis not made in the aegis from affecting targets inside the aegis.

There is nothing in the current guidelines that prevents a spell that was cast outside an aegis on a target outside the aegis from continuing to have effect when the target crosses into the aegis. This is true of familiar bonds, spells of flying, invisibility, longevity rituals, talisman bonds, etc.

I personally think that changing this is a massive change to the setting and a line that should not under any circumstances be crossed.

Simply put you are trying to fix what is not broken.

Wrong. Current text of Aegis of the Hearth says
"The Aegis is
also able to block foreign Intellego spells, even if
they cannot normally be blocked by a Parma
Magica, and spells that were cast before they
entered the Aegis, such as an invisibility spell cast
on a magus outside the Aegis."

So according to the current rules the Aegis would block invisiblity just as it blocks spells cast from the outside into the Aegis.

1 Like