Why would a mage invent a level 30 spell tied to a single scout when they would have to use it on many scouts and for many years. At several seasons per spell (A lab total of 45 means 2 seasons), this would be a waste and seems unreasonable.
Yes, but it keeps them from warping. It's your call - do you want your scouts to stay un-warped, or have the utility to replace them when the flaws start adding up? You can't have your cake and eat it too, y'know.
Or, I suppose, you could just hire trustworthy scouts and ask them, like a mundane would.
Because as I understand it, a spell can only be designed with a single person in mind. If you are feeling generous, you could allow a spell mastery option that allows up up to your spell mastery score additional persons.
If you don't like the rules, you can change them.
It's up to an individual magus to decide whether he values the well-being of his covenfolk more than his own time. You would eliminate what I perceive like an interesting dilemma for the players.
You could find ways of communicating with them that do not involve casting high-level spells at them. Imaginem spells targeting devices seem to be popular. Demonstrating creativity is part of what being a magus is about. 
Edit- Finally, not all flaws have to be crippling: remember that the Storyguide gets to decide what is appropriate! Witch marks make a great magic-related flaw to enliven stories with (thanks to JeanMichelle for the humorous reminder).
I am going to stand by my view that momentary is not long enough to qualify for the brief for warping purposes. Consider it is equal to a full year of effects designed or year in high aura.
Constant and casual warping like that is not something I want to dominate play.
Fair enough. How about momentary Creo rituals? Heck, how about momentary non-Creo rituals?
[I'm at home with a sprained ankle. All I have to do is post on the forums... I could use some CrCo... 
]
Or, as others and I would have it, "The Range of the spell (Voice) is the allowable distance from the Caster to the Target (where the Lightning is created) which is also on top of the soon-to-be-crispy-bandit".
The issue is that target is used to mean two very, very different things. If you added a Rego requisite and a Diameter duration, allowing you to control ball lightning and move it over the victim after creation, would you still rule that that causes warping? How about a magus who, falling, lands on a magical pillow of cushions? Or a magus who lights his lab with CrIg spells?
For myself, anything that channels the power of 4 pawns or more of vis into you should probably cause warping. This does make instantaneous healing rituals les attractive, but then I tend to see that as a feature not a bug. As for other momentary effects, I think the guideline, rather than the final spell level, should be considered as more important. No matter how you cut it, a momentary spell to turn someone's bones to lead is more powerful than a long duration one to make someone's eyes green, even if you might end up with the same level.
I have found the definitive answer within the RAW."Something, the connection, is an Arcane Connection to something else, the target, if the connection was very closely associated with the target, often by being a part of it. Once the connection is removed from the target, the connection starts to fade..." (AM p 84)Therefore, unless you have an Arcane Connection to the bandit, he clearly suffers no warping, as he cannot be "the target" unless there is an AC (the connection) to him. You don't have to use the AC, but until you have it, he is simply not a target as defined by the RAW.
You're not going to convince anyone by quoting the rules, because altho' they may seem to be perfectly clear in one instance, in the next they contradict themselves in the usage of the word "target", and at no point do they make an effort to, specifically, define the use of the word "target". It all has to be taken in context - and that will vary based on opinion. Accept it.
On page 111, the first sentence under "Ranges" seems to strongly support the "bandit = target" theory. "The range of a spell is the distance to the nearest part of the target of the spell..."But "seems to strongly support" is not the same as "proves" or "defines". What is the "target of the spell"? Because the very next two sentences contradict that assumption..."Thus, the caster... can cast a Target: Room Corpus spell on the people in the room... The target of the spell is the room,..."So, the "target" is not always the thing that is listed as the target. Great.
And there's "Targets and Creo" (p 115) - which is pretty damn clear."The target of a Creo spell that actually creates something is the thing created..."Did the CrAu Lightning Bolt spell create the bandit? No? Hrmmm... then "the target" is... yeah.
And what about that next section, "Targets and Sizes" (p 115.)"Every Form has a base size for Individual Targets..."And, if we look at Aurum, we find..."Some target categories for Aurum require some clarification...
Individual: A single phenomon: one cloud, one wind, [color=red]one bolt of lightning. (AM p 125)Hmmm... So... where does a bandit fit into those? And how is the bolt, itself, not the target, when it specifically says (here) that is is?
Or is the target both the bolt and the bandit, but in different senses of the word?
The rules both support and deny both interpretations, warping and no warping. You can go in circles as much as you want, just don't pretend that there is any definitive "proof" one way or the other.* Either one is fine.
Say it with me: YOUR SAGA MAY VARY!
(* Until/unless the authors speak up. But I'm thinkin' they're too wise for that.) 
(Personally, and despite all the above to the contrary, I would rule that, generally speaking, a strong combat spell like that does warp. Otherwise, mostly only Corpus and Mentem spells would cause warping. That's not anywhere in the rules, it's just simple meta-game logic - and it's the most convincing argument I can think of.)
The Target is Corpus - a body
The target is the spell's recipient.
In this case, both are the same, thus warping, whereas in a CrIg spell, the Target is the fire created, and the target is the charred remains.
This spell is the reason why IoL should not warp its victim. If it does, then so should this.
CrIm35 Wizencracker’s Witty Warper
R: Arc, D: Moon, T: Ind
Req: Intellego
This spell conjures the illusion of a speaking mouth upon the forehead of a target to whom you hold an Arcane Connection. This phantom mouth will drone on and on with witty wisecracks, rude remarks, and really bad jokes. You can control the nature and subject of the humor, and can speak through the mouth if you choose. You can also hear through the ears of the target, and can hold conversations with him or others through use of this magic mouth. This spell takes its name from the fact that it inflicts a point of Warping, because it is a 7th magnitude spell and constitutes a powerful effect. If it makes you feel better, you can chalk it up to the nitwit wisecracking driving you crazy.
(Base 2, +4 Arc, +3 Moon, +1 speak under command, +1 Intellego requisite)
NO! This should not cause Warping! It was just a joke! But if you are a killer DM and the very concept amuses you, feel free to use it to add humor to your game 
As the (noob) SG who asked Andrew about this, Hello Everyone!
It's very heart-warming to find so much discussion about a minor query I had. Thank you to everyone who's replied, I appreciate all your ideas. I have been lurking for the last 2 years, so it feels like I know some of you well already.
I find myself nodding in agreement with a lot of the arguments, but mostly i like the ideas of Warping as a result of higher level spells than the RAW suggest (Marko's suggestion), possibly limited to spells which either have a lot of vis put into them or which alter the victim in some way: Corpus/Mentem/some Vim (possibly also Marko's ideas?). Therefore, brief attack spells won't cause warping, but magi can certainly design spells that will...
I'll be putting it to the vote next session to see what the others think.
Coming from a 4th ed saga, where there are far fewer Twilight Points which are far more significant, I'm not sure how significant the exact numbers of WP are.
Do you all feel that magi gain too many too easily in 5th ed, or just right, or that it makes little difference to your games?
Ian
I feel Warping is too common and too easilly obtained. But that's just my opinion. I also come from a 4th edition background 
Welcome!
Some topics seem to be unexpected seeds for larger discussions. The rules often are easily misinterpreted, or parts overlooked or changes missed, especially from one edition to the next, or for players who are accustomed to different magic systems (from other RPG's.)
Warping does work differently than Twilight points did in 4th ed. I don't feel it's too much or too little, it tends to be very mage/saga specific. (Which tells me it's about right.)
I feel warping is too easy to come by as well. Twilight is also a lot easier to fall into.
The real problem is that you get warping AND twilight. The bigger issue is that mundanes warp way too easily. I would say that only major transformative magics or really long term high levels magics should warp mundanes. I cast a low level spell to help someone heal (+3 or +6) to recovery roll, for a long term effect, this will cause warping.
High level intellego spells should not cause much warping, you are only percieving what is there. Momentary effects should not cause much warping either, the magic is there and is gone.
What about CrIm35 Wizencracker's Witty Warper? Shoult that cause warping? I would say no.
I would say no too, but I'd be far easier to sway on that one than IoL - after all, it's a long term effect and a complex combination of simple ones which change over time as the caster adopts and releases control over the spell. I doubt I'd have one casting cause warping, but repeated use certainly should.
As an example of how this can get complicated, however, look at Ward Against Heat And Flames - it's ReIg, but cast on a person to ward flames off them - clearly the simple Ignem as Target is a little too simplistic in this case. There's the Target (any fire which comes into contact with the Ward) and the, for want of a better word, substrate which supports the spell. In IoL, however, there is no substrate - the spell can be cast at void as easily as at a human. As, indeed, can the Ward, albeit with some fiddling for Range - you can't touch Void.
There seems to be a qualitative difference between a spell that causes a benign (if annoying) illusion to appear on your body and one that fills your entire corpus with lethal magical electricity.
I do not believe that anyone(?) was arguing for a blind application of every last spell of Level 30 or more - if they were I missed it, (possibly intentionally, ahem). The question was whether ~any~ such non-Corpus, non-Mentem spell would cause warping - that is, any spell that did not, clearly and inarguably, have that (N)PC as a "target" of the effect.
And my answer is a resounding "No". Only if the spell directly affects the subject/target, not an effect generated by the spell. MuCo yes, even at a lower level I would give in and agree. But a CrIm or CrIg or CrAu spell? No, it should not cause warping. Two out of three are causing potentially lethal damage as it is. Isn't that enough? The third is just silly.
And as for me, I tend to "forget" the warping from spells anyway. Too much of a pain, it interferes with my storytelling.
Someone getting hit by lightning should cause burns and all sorts of nasty effects whether natural or magical. That is the damage of lightning. The fact that the lightning was magical origin vs natural orginal should be no difference, you have lightning damage. There shouldn't be warping.
There are those that have argued that 6th magnitude and higher is warping period in this thread. I opposed that and think warping really needs to be subjective rather than fixed hard standard.
Out of curiousity, and because I largely agree with your argument, how would you rule on ReIg - someone who kept WaHaF up constantly?