Hello guys,
I'd like your opinion on this.
Suppose a Magus has Muto Animal among his Incompatible Arts.
He certainly cannot turn a pig into a human (MuAn(Co)), but can he turn a human into a pig (MuCo(An))?
Bye,
Rafaël
nope
Nope. I'm not even sure that I'd allow a casting requisite.
If you cannot make muto and animal interact I would rule against any spell that has Muto and Animal in the arts involved, regardless of the exact stuff. Eyes of the cat would be impossible to cast for this guy, for example.
Cheers,
Xavi
Not a chance.
He chose poorly. 8)
Best bet is to create the ~illusion~ that he is a pig, and perhaps a Mentem effect to support that appearance.
Or turn the target into a marble block (MuCo(Te)), and then carve a pig statue out of the marble (ReTe(An?))!
WOW!!! Quite a few wound levels to the stone block if you do that.
You can turn him into a pig-looking stone block without having to carve it, though: Mu(Re)Co(Te). Comploicated, though 
CHeers,
Xavi
Of course.
It's probably better to do it in two spells, MuCo(Te) to change him into marble, and then MuTe(An?) to change the shape of the marble. Carving is still more fun.
He can't use any combination using Muto and Animal, even as requisites or going around the long way. He can turn himself into a pig statue and animate that statue though.
I just looked closer. Animal is not a requisite to make something shaped like an animal. That's 3rd edition. It is only required if he has actual fleshy animal parts.
Oh yes, you are right. You can't use a MuTe(An) effect.
It isn't required but the troupe can still specify that it is required for a particular effect if they think that the spell warrants it --- that's why I had a question mark beside the An requisite.
The key being the phrase: "Additional effects may not require a requisite if they are purely cosmetic."
Shaping stone should not have a Animal requisite, just like it would not need a Co req to shape a stone like a human.
Oh well, now i see Marko already went that way...
Well i most certainly agree with it i can add then.
I agree, it doesn't have too. But the troupe could plausibly decide that a particular spell did. And there is precedent for this in the rules. For example, Eyes of the Cat requires a requisite for the purely cosmetic effect of making the character's eyes look like a cat.
A troupe can not just plausibly do this arbitrarilly and expect people to stay in the game. Eyes of the Cat literally changes your eyes into those of a Cat, nothing cosmetic about that.
Yes, I know. And you still haven't admitted that I am right 
(I am being smarmy, take my words lightly 
)
But RL's point is that actually changing them to a cat's eyes is not necessary for the spell effect - in fact, it has nothing to do (except cosmetics) with the desired effect, which is merely to gain a minor ability, in that case, to see in the dark. Nothing about "seeing in the dark" has to be tied to an animal - it's merely creative and colorful to do so - hence, cosmetic.
~IF~ the Guidelines were to read "give an animal ability (with requisite)", that would be inarguably different. But they don't, so it's open to interpretation.
(Note that a lot of this is legacy effect - The Guidelines don't say you gain the organ of an animal, only an un-defined minor ability- they don't say how that must manifest. As mentioned elsewhere, the spell could be called "eyes of the night walker" and we ignore the whole "cat" thing entirely.)
However in the case of the spell in this topc, to give a statue the shape of an animal is not, imo, purely cosmetic - it is arbitrary and open to the whim of the mage, but there is a concrete element to the final form - it's not merely a bit of glitter attached to the spell to make it shiny and cool.
And there is, to me, something essential of the "Form of Animal" about it, as well, a tangible element that is no longer of the realm of Corpus. And that is the dealbreaker (for me.)
But it's admittedly a close call, and one way or the other has solid justification. The key, for those players and SG's faced with such a call, is to make your decision based on reasoning, and apply those reasons across the board, so that "magic" in your Saga has a solid feel to it, and is not just a string of arbitrary and unconnected rulings listed together under the heading "houserules".
Except of course then it shouldnt have Animal requisite.
For any reason. Having the req only because the name of the spell, that would be truly insane.
"-target gains the eyes of a cat"
My interpretation is that the req is there because the target gains an essential characteristic from cat eyes.
Same here. You eyes become those of an animal. It is unadvisable to go into public places when you are under the effects of spells like those. I would allow it wi9thout requisites, but that would be 1 or 2 magnitudes higher. The requisite is there because it is needed IMS, not because it is fancyful: it is essentiasl to the spell.
Cheers,
Xavi
Urgh. 
It's essential to that spell, as described, but not to that spell effect as the MuCo Guidelines read.Eyes for the Night
MuCo 5
Give someone the minor ability to see in low light conditions.
(Base 2, +1 Touch, +2 Sun)
There - a perfect spell, exactly by the guidelines, no requisite, no Animal, no higher magnitudes, no problem.
"Eyes of the Cat" is, for better or worse, more complex than it needs to be, probably because it's both a legacy spell and a strong mental image for any storyteller (and a nice complication to gaining that ability.) But it's pure fluff. Cosmetic fluff.
You can houserule it anyway you want, and I admit I like the idea that the Target actually acquires the animal features that represent the "minor ability" they gain - but there's nothing that says that effect has to be built that way.
So you're right, DW - it shouldn't have that requisite. And your "interpretation" is influenced by the wording of the spell itself, which is a legacy from earlier editions. But read the guidelines - that "wording" is completely unsupported - no "animal", no "requisite" - no nuthin'. "Give a minor ability", period.
So, the "cat's eyes", in that spell, are "cosmetic", because they are added as an afterthought, to make the spell flashier and more fun.
"However in the case of the spell in this topc, to give a statue the shape of an animal is not, imo, purely cosmetic - it is arbitrary and open to the whim of the mage, but there is a concrete element to the final form - it's not merely a bit of glitter attached to the spell to make it shiny and cool."
Does this position imply that to use Rego craft magic to carve wood into 'shape x' it should have requisits of forms appropriate to the shape? Or should a Rego craft magic whittler should be able to whittle without requisites. Is it a different case because the shape is drawn from the whittlers skill and not from the realm of forms?