There was a strong argument that Leap of the Homecoming should be allowed to teleport you to a person or thing you have an AC to, not just a place. I think that ruling is fine, though I don't use it in my own games.
I mean, you can just throw extra magnitudes at it for difficulty.. you could have the familiar bond teleport you to the familiar with extra 4 magnitudes of use.
1 Like
Did air really not exist? Sure, understanding it as a mixture of gases. But just air existing. Democritus had said air atoms are light and whirling, pervading all other materials. So I thought air existed in Greek philosophy and by extension in the natural philosophy of Ars Magica. Meanwhile, Auram affects air as well.
Now, that doesn't mean its ownership doesn't change quickly.
The answer is simple. Do what works best for the game. If you are a "killer DM" and like to smack down the players at every opportunity, then it doesn't work. If you are a rational human being that understands that this is a game and everyone at the table is there to have fun, then it works fine. I honestly cannot understand why in the world anyone would want to nerf this.
1 Like
One possible option is to require a (more difficult) Finesse roll to teleport if the AC isn't immoveable?
Take a look at A&A p.17: "Beneath the moon are the elemental spheres of fire, air, water, and earth, according to Plato’s theory of the simplest, atomic elements of the visible cosmos. They are ordered by weight and clarity. Fire, being the lightest, resides just under the moon’s sphere, followed by the less-dense air, the more-dense water, and the densest, earth."
Indeed.
By ArM5 p.85 box Arcane Connections, a "wood shard from a specific place" and "rock or metal from a specific place" are very durable ACs to the place. "Air from a specific place" is a very volatile one.
The wood shard would likely come from a table or such in the room. And that table is unlikely to be screwed down - if we follow David Chart's disinclination to nail down chamber pots. 
A bird present in this place is somewhere in the middle between wood and air. If you have a feather of it, you have an AC to the place. If that bird is your familiar, you are an AC to it: but if your SG dithers, you can just have kept a feather of your familiar in your robe, to make abundantly clear.
I just re-read this, and realized something, from the exact wording:
Ever-present Familiar, 0 points, Init 0, Animal.
Allows Monica to call Silexa to her
side, provided the wolf is within seven
leagues. Silexia often recovers Arcane
Connections to places, to allow Monica
to use Leap of Homecoming. (Base
30, +3 24 uses per day)
- Monica can call Silexa to her side. Not to her sanctum, but to where she is at any given time. So why should it not work the other way? But it is designed so the effect affacting rhe familiar is under control of the magus, as defined by the rules for familiar bond enchantments.
- The way it is written up, it is not a Hermetic Familiar enchantment though. However, isting Might cost (even it it's 0) and Init is done for creature powers. So, the wolf had the power for Monica to call it to her side, even before the wolf met Monica and was bonded with? Very convenient
Kidding aside, it makes perfect sense as an enchantment made by Monica, the numbers are fine.
But why, one could ask, does she not simply have a Leap of Homecoming spell, in order to teleport directly out to her familiar? Well, what if she doesn't want or need to go ouyt here rigth now, but later? Maybe Silexa found a possible vis source, so it brings Monica an AC to the place, so she can go there later in the yeat to harvest it. Also, is Monica wants an effect to bring Silexa back for safety, this does the trick. Effectively, it is better all in all than the Leap of Homecoming shortcut IMHO. Unless you always just want to go to the familiar right now.
1 Like
You hashed out the details very well. Thanks.
Technically, it could have developed that power after becoming bound to Monica.
Magical being rarely change, but given enough vis, they absolutely can.
As said, the familias is the AC to the place where the magus wants to go. it is a transient AC, but still an AC for the simple fact of being there. If it moves somewhere else it loses its AC to the previous place and gets one to a new one. Easy. 
Ever-present Familiar is still listed as a Bond Power. Also, point cost and Initiative make no sense for it, as it "allows Monica to call Silexa to her side."
So listing "0 point, Init 0" is a blatant oversight, at which Christian pokes some well-deserved fun.
All in good fun though. Ars Magica is a crunchy system to write for, and small details may slip. And us
readers and users can be a touch, nit-picking crowd
It really is a small thing, it matters what she can do a lot more than how. And did anyone else notice it before now?
1 Like
this is your choice, and well, if it works for you, no issue (still wait for any usefulness when transient AC should absolutely be forbidden unless wanting to make anything an AC to everything)
Still, ArM5 says than an arcane connection is defined by a very close association between the object, not a quick and ephemeral association. There's table on how many time an AC will last, and the shortest duration is hours...
If you create an arcane link to every place you walk in, then by end of days, you will have such links to every place you have visited... a servant's broom is a link to all place in the castle it was used to clean during that day
The location an object is located at is only that, its current location. Acquiring an arcane connection would require the object to dwell here for several hours, days or years to the point of being mystically linked to the place.
Now if you want to create spell linked to the location the object/person you have an arcane link to is currently... Do it, some intelligo spell effectively use this kind of method (summoning the distant image InIm25, ArM5 p145), affecting directly something that way is written as an arcane limit (The limit of arcane connection see ArM5 p80), but these spell use such relation without direct impact on target location (breakthrough or not? DM choice)
By fact the only interest of a location arcane link is than this link doesn't change as soon than this object change location, otherwise it's absolutely not useful as the only location link you will have with an object is the current location you and the object are in...
the familiar is an AC to that room WHILE he is touching it. The moment he leaves the place, he stops being a connection to it. It is fairly easy, really. At the end of the day he is not an AC to all the places he has been, since it is not touching them. Touching is a fairly close association.
I will happily accept that a familiar has an arcane connection to a location while it is touching it.
What I don't necessarily accept is that this actually matters for the purposes of this discussion.
Arcane connection is not a transitive property. A mage has an arcane connection to their familiar. They don't have an arcane connection to everything their familiar is an arcane connection to. (And everything those things are connected to, and, and, and...) It's analogous to the difference between r: touch and r: prop. Touching something with your talisman would be enough as it counts as you. Touching something with anything else, including but not limited to your familiar, does not work. You could have the mage research a r: familiar or t: familiar as a minor breakthrough to accomplish this, but the capability is not currently part of hermetic magic. Your connection to your familiar is sufficient to teleport it to you - you have a current connection to both the target (the familiar) and the destination (somewhere close where the familiar appears, most likely within arms reach, which you are capable of sensing). It is not sufficient to teleport to a location near† the familiar, as the mage has no connection to the location he would appear.
An effect enchanted into the familiar bond would work, as the familiar would technically be the caster, drawing the mage to itself, and having an appropriate connection to both the mage and the destination. Likewise, sensing through the familiar would potentially work, as the mage would then have an appropriate connection to the destination. But the mere AC to the familiar simply isn't enough.
† Weirdly, your arcane connection would be sufficient to teleport inside your familiar, given a familiar of appropriately large size to contain the mage. You're welcome. 
3 Likes
I like this approach, it addresses all my main concerns. And I agree on the rest of your post as well.
This status "touching is creating an arcane link" seems wrong to me, let's use some counter examples of such process application.
Can i use a building as a link to anything inside it?
Can i use the ground i am walking on as an arcane link to anything else touching it? Which means anything standing on the whole landscape around me...
If i use air the same way, do i now have an arcane link to anything in open air all around the world?
touching is a physical relation, not a mystical one.
(and i still repeat this other argument, repeated by bittergeek, this kind of location link wouldn't make any sense or usefulness as arcane links are not transitive and this would simply give you an arcane link to the location you are already in)
I understand that I may be in the minority. But I honestly do not understand why peoplle wantor even desire a precise scientific definition of the mechanics of magic in a game. I am not being smarmy. Well, maybe just a little. But seriously, help me understand this point of view. It seems that some people really like the faux science. If I could better understand what what they are seeking and enjoying, it may help me become a better player and GM. I understand the comfort of rules and the desire for an even playing field. But this very topic seems so micro pedantic that it confuses me.
2 Likes
I can tell you why I am rather enjoying the discussion.
I understand your concerns, and usually I tend to accept whatever it's fun at the table.
If I was the SG in a saga and I had to make a call, I would definetely have allowed the usage described. My short answer for the original question would have been yes. I hopped along this thread later on, when different opinions weighed in, and different approach emerged.
The reason why I sometimes nitpick on something is because I like to explore boundaries and to push them in corner cases. I felt that this could be one of those cases. I'm mostly for hand-wave a majority of issues, if they don't bring anything to the table.
I'm currently playing a saga with some real life friends, and many of the issues are probably going to show up sooner or later in our game. Sometimes my position here is not necessary what I think, but what I can expect from some of them 
Hmm. I kinda get that. It is an exercise that prepares you for potential conflicts at the table. Yeah?