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.
@David_Chart
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).
In a large number of cases of Ars Magica magics, the perimeter of the "Target" is somewhat fuzzy, and typically extends a little beyond the target's "core" into what I'll call the target's penumbra. For example, when you scry upon a Corpus target with Eye of the Sage, you also see anything within one pace of it. Wards - and that part of the Aegis that "keeps stuff out" - can be seen as simply operating on the Target all the way to its penumbra, actively pushing out unwanted stuff that has (just) entered the Target's penumbra, before it reaches the Target's "core". This applies both to Individual Targets, and to Containers.
The issue is not simply whether there is empty space between things, but whether that space exists as a thing. Read relativity by Einstein- his discussion regarding the classical thoughts on the subject are enlightening to see how people viewed space prior to his theories.
Looking at the discussion here and in the other thread, there are a couple of points of consensus.
It needs to be made explicit that Aegis works against all supernatural powers, of whatever realm.
It would be nice if there were simple, consistent rules for how Aegis worked on non-Hermetic powers.
The first point is easy, and well within the scope of errata. The second is likely to be trickier.
So, what can we do with the second point?
Subtracting half the level of the Aegis from the totals of anyone trying to use a power that has a total is an obvious first step. That will make most supernatural abilities non-functional.
The RAW could be taken to say that enchanted items do not work unless they can penetrate the Aegis, even if they are within the Aegis. That is not entirely consistent with how other things work, but it is a possible reading of the current rules. (The paragraph about enchanted items does not say "from outside the Aegis".) That could be extended to cover abilities that do not need a roll.
Actually, there is a possible revision here. Any supernatural effect generated by a non-native must Penetrate the Aegis, whether the generator is within or outside the Aegis. (Better phrasing if this turns out to be a good idea.) This would shut down most things, and would not need to Penetrate itself. This could also be extended to creatures: their existence is basically a Might 0 power, with Penetration equal to their Might + Penetration. This could replace the current Aegis/2 penalty. (This is close to what @ezzelino and @Samsaptaka suggested in the other thread.) It would also tend towards "Aegis is not resisted".
Comments? This is a substantial possible change, so it might be best to implement pieces of it to fix observed problems, and avoid full consistency.
Regarding the "supernatural effect", should it affect passive/detection supernatural powers (second sight, sense (un)Holiness) as well as the more active ones (Shapeshifter, Entrancement...)?
"The Aegis clouds your second sight." Is understandable, but is it desirable?
I would like for Aegis and The Oath Of Truth (one of the lesser Fenicil's Rituals, which canonically do see occasional use; this particular one kills you or worse if you break the oath or attempt to dispel it) not to interact in such a way that a magus under its effects dies upon walking into an Aegis.
We would need to comb the books, define rather precisely "supernatural effect", and find out how the resulting zoo penetrates.
HoH:MC p.22 box Ringing the Changes is just a little window into the likely distinctions. I always concluded, that attacks of a (ArM5 p.48f ) Skinchanger were not resisted because there was just no way to attach a Penetration to them.
I'd like very much to be wrong here: but I fear there will be no way to define a unified approach to the Penetration of supernatural effects.
And just to get something like a unified Penetration for most effects, I would accept a list of supernatural effects where it doesn't apply: hoping, that most effects it contains - like "Skinchanger" - are affecting the user/caster only.
EDIT: A better example than Skinchanger are Cords and Bond Powers of Familiars.
Yes. Mainly because there's no reason why it shouldn't.
It makes sense to me. Is it desirable? Is it actively undesirable?
On the balance, to me, it appears to be more desirable than undesirable. Though it is fairly obvious that there are arguments either way.
To what extent is this a new problem, rather than a problem that already existed if a magus with a familiar walked uninvited into an Aegis? There seems to be a good argument for bonds fizzling already (as has already been mentioned). If that is that case, then I think it's better to shelve this problem temporarily, because it has to be solved either way, and I think we should choose the basic functioning of Aegis based on the central cases, not the corner ones.
I'm on the fence about it honestly. And I can certainly see both interpretations being valid, maybe something left to each saga to decide at the onset.
Maybe only supernatural effects which require a roll will be penalised, which would leave familiar chords, and oddly skinchanger (it seems weird that the minor virtue is fine but the major shapeshifter is not), untouched.