Bury one under a pile of human bones...
1 Like
I am not,
I am saying that there are two mechanics, that are identical, except that one explicitly says it requires penetration - something that, I claim, is also coherent with the general MR framework - and the other does not. I am saying that in the absence of an explicit ruling, the second "silent" mechanic should be assume to behave like the first; if it doesn't, it should be mentioned explicitly; and any inconsistency creates a loss of value that should have suitable compensation in some other aspect of the game.
I note that you slyly removed "direct" from your reply 
Really, I am not trying to win a point here, just clarify a position.
Note I am ok with the rephrasing the Aegis so it hampers spellcasting without requiring penetration.
I gave one example that does exactly that in the errata thread.
But the mechanical specification must be different; as it stands, it does not support your position.
Here is what's bugging me right now:
Some people are saying that changing the ease of casting a spell or changing penetration acts on the spell, so it doesn't need to penetrate; but at the same time changing the ease of casting a spell or changing penetration acts on the caster, so it must penetrate. Why can Aegis of the Hearth not be acting on the spells??? Where does it say it cannot be?
You just did explicitly right there!!! AotH does not have an identical effect to the PeVi guideline. Some of its results match, but that doesn't mean it happens the same way. If you get hit by a lightning spell and Soak +35 damage versus getting hit by a fire spell and Soak +35 damage, you'll see the same result. But those are different mechanics that end up with the same result. Therefore, just because you end up with the same result doesn't mean you've used the same mechanic.
The point is that you are forcing one reading on it. It doesn't need to be rewritten to do so. There are other readings that allow for it. All you have to do is recognize that reading back from the result does not mean the mechanic is the same.
1 Like
I am not trying to convince you... but look:
ArM5 p. 160, PeVi guideline "Reduce the casting total for all magic cast by the target by half the (level + 2 magnitudes) of the spell... The spell must penetrate the target’s Magic Resistance in order to have any effect".
ArM5 p.161, Aegis of the Hearth "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."
The second passage mentions nothing about penetration. However, a) the effect is described, in a slightly more discursive fashion, exactly as in the guideline and b) the subject of the sentence are magi who cast spells, not the spells themselves.
I agree this isn't irrefutable evidence of the need of penetration. Otherwise we would not be discussing this. However, I claim that there is more evidence for the need of penetration than for the opposite position. So, the opposite position, if it's indeed the desired outcome, should be stated explicitly. And because it creates an inconsistency, there should be good reason for it (and I am not claiming there is not).
If I do not manage to get my point across, I'm sorry. I think you are clever and arguing in good faith, so it must be my fault; but I don't think I can be any clearer than this. So I'll leave it at this!
Yes, and I acknowledged this matching result. But at the same time I know we can take similar snippets of other spells and see the same sort of thing, when we know the effects are quite different even if the results may be the same. Consider these two:
p.126: bolt shoots forth from your outstretched hand in the direction you are pointing, doing +30 damage to a single target it hits.
p.140: Create a... doing +30 damage.
Don't those match amazingly well? I did the same snippet thing. The big difference here is that I'm telling you these are definitely not the same effect even though they have the same result.
The effect also penalizes penetration for powers in the same manner, while this guideline doesn't? Auras cause matching spell casting penalties and penalties to penetration with powers. So if we extract things a little differently, this looks much more like an Aura penalty than that PeVi guideline. But the problem remains: in both cases we're extracting bits from a whole selectively to make a point. If it's OK to extract bits selectively in one way, why not similarly in another way?
Have you read Wizard's Communion recently? It's all about changes to the magus's spell casting roll and the associated botch dice, not about the spell itself. If this style description means the magus is the target, then why isn't the magus (or the magi) the target(s) with Wizard's Communion? This is part of the fudging of things in one case and not the other that I've been observing. If we're going to argue this one way in one instance, why argue it the other way in the other instance?
Here we disagree. For every point you've set forth, I've shown one for the opposite position. I don't see any clear "more" for either side of the debate.
Of course, there are inconsistencies both ways, such as Wizard's Communion v. AotH with the spell v. caster point above.
I totally understand your point. I completely accept the validity of using the approach. However, I also recognize that it is equally valid via essentially the same methods to come to the opposite conclusion. That's probably why we've seen people changing their minds in both directions above.
All we really know is the AotH must penetrate for something. We don't really know for what. So right now we choose what works best for our own game.
1 Like
So, is this supposed to stay open, or should David close one way or another?
If you invoke me with an @, the boards tell me about the post.
The arguments got dense, but I think the summary is as follows.
Everyone agrees that, RAW, Aegis needs to Penetrate to keep creatures with Might out.
Everyone agrees that, RAW, Aegis does not need to Penetrate the caster's MR to block a spell.
There are two schools of thought on whether, RAW, Aegis needs to Penetrate to reduce the casting total of spells cast within it. (Those two schools of thought could be called "yes" and "no".)
I am inclined to go with "no" (mumble mumble fluid vis mumble mumble), because I think that AotH should give a strong home-ground advantage, for story reasons. AotH does not need to set precedents for any other spells, so there are no knock-one effects. Do people have strong aesthetic reasons for preferring "yes"?
2 Likes
What about the case that all spells are penalised, except if they are Personal range, and behind a Parma that the Aegis can not Penetrate?
That gets really ugly. I started getting the wishy-washy responses when I started asking about that. Why? If that's the case, then we should probably have to penetrate to use MuVi on a spell with Personal Range. But even a bunch of people who favor AotH penetrating to penalize spells cast within it were saying MuVi shouldn't have to penetrate.
Allowing Personal range spells free reign would be a major weakness in what is supposed to be a strong defense. Things like sensory magic, which is normally not affected by MR/PM, can be blocked at the perimeter of the Aegis.
So allowing Personal range spells an exemption to the casting penalty within an Aegis would mean that a Personal range Sight sensory spell that is bounced at the edge of the Aegis would function perfectly if the Magi stuck his head through the boarder of the Aegis.
EDIT: One edge case where Magic Resistance mastery for Aegis would be extremely useful if for Magi who have become immortal by becoming a being of Might. Many covenants do not present tokens until the visitors are already within the Aegis. A Magus bouncing when they attempt to cross the edge would raise questions.
2 Likes
I was thinking of a Bjornaer maga travelling to a friendly Covenant in heartbeast form and trying to transform to human once they have reached shelter, inside the Aegis (they will be naked).
I agree with that, but I would stress that (at least according to my troupe's interpretation) the Aegis has to Penetrate the MR of a spell's Target to extinguish a spell on that Target.
Consider the very example in the Aegis' description: "The Aegis is also able to block ... spells that were cast before they entered the Aegis, such as an invisibility spell cast on a magus outside the Aegis".
Then the Aegis must overcome the MR of that magus, even if it need not overcome the MR of the caster.
I think this is a very strong "metaprinciple" of MR: an entity with MR is protected from any external supernatural effect, including those that interfere with any magic on the entity. So, I can't dispel an entity's Invisibility without bypassing the entity's MR. I would be extremely wary of allowing an exception to such a "conceptual building block" of Ars Magica, even for a special spell like the Aegis.
After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion I have a strong preference for "yes". Any magic directly affecting me (including affecting any supernatural effect already on me, or my abilty to affect myself at R:Per with magic), should have to bypass my MR. Again, this seems a conceptual building block of Ars Magica that I'd be loathe to make an exception for even for a special spell like the Aegis.
Also, let me say that it seems ... wrong that it should be so much more difficult for me to cast a R:Per effect on myself than to have my Talisman, or my familiar('s bond), cast that same R:Per effect on me.
Ultimately, before addressing the spellcasting penalty within the Aegis, one should address the strong disparity between how it affects supernatural effects based on casting totals (that see their ability to come into existence severely curtailed), and supernatural effects not based on casting totals (that just see their penetration reduced). For example, within an Aegis Shapeshifter becomes virtually impossible to use, but the "weaker" Skinchanger can be used just as if the Aegis was not there.
What comes out of that may well prove resolutive for whether the "spellcasting-penalty effect" needs to penetrate. Among other reasons, because the argument "let's bend the general rules to make the Aegis strong, because we want home advantage to be strong" loses a lot of its punch if it makes the Aegis strong only against a small subset of supernatural effects.
I'm loath to think of magi entering a foreign aegis the better to ignore it, because let's face it, it's easier to build magic resistance vs the spell than its penetration given how arcane connections can hardly be reliably used to power an aegis. An aegis should be reliable, not something you ignore after spending 5 xp on spell mastery the better to slay the order's members in their home.
1 Like
My gaming group plays it with the Aegis not needing to Pen mages, to disincentives learning aegis and mastering it for defence at chargen.
1 Like
@David_Chart Broadly speaking, I think that any "cosmologically correct" and "aesthetically pleasing" clarification/revision of the Aegis should ensure that:
- All supernatural effects entering, or originating from, the Aegis are equally suppressed, e.g. regardless of the presence of a Casting Total (say: penetrate the Aegis' Level, or fizzle out).
- Individuals with MR can resist the suppression for effects affecting themselves, if already extant or being produced by themselves. This preserves the general principle of MR.
- Being "foreign", "guest", or "original" to an Aegis works equally for creatures and objects, to avoid uncertainties and potential abuses.
I like the Aegis being as hard core as possible.
What makes the order work is the Parma suppressing the gift social penalty; and the Aegis making killing and stealing another magis stuff is hard, so you may as well negotiate and get along.
An Aegis needing to penetrate makes the Aegis not much of a defence. I accept that's a huge divergence from nearly every other spell, but that is what makes the breakthrough of inventing the Aegis so important.
4 Likes
A lot of people seem to suggest the Aegis can/should be a strong defense in an inter-Hermetic conflict.
That is, in my view, a great fallacy, regardless of whether it has to penetrate.
Because the Aegis is fairly trivial to dispel.
So I'd rather not bend the rules into strange shapes vainly seeking an advantage it can't provide.
You're right that it's not impossibly hard to dispel (depending on the aegis' level), but I wouldn't go to the point of saying it is trivial, since to dispel, you not only have to meet the regular dispel guidelines, that dispel also has to have enough penetration to avoid being stopped by the aegis as a foreign spell in the first place. This makes it comparatively almost twice as hard to dispel as to cast at any given skill level, even with specialized dispel for vim. Getting +50 penetration on a level 40 perdo vim effect at voice range to get through a level 50 aegis isn't exactly trivial spellcasting, while the higher level aegis is comparatively easier to achieve by bonuses to ritual casting activity from skills, and penetration from wizard's vigil spells, while a solo wizard on a war usually can't count on sodales for wizard's communion. If we're at the step of covenant on covenant warfare where the attacker can depend on unopposed group spellcasting... well, again, this isn't a trivial event. We're talking about a borderline archmagi being able to overtake the aegis of a Rego Vim magi barely of master level. A master of perdo vim would barely, on his own, be able to take on the aegis cast by a magus a few years out of gauntlet. Enchantments with very high lab total dedicated to penetration can help, for sure, but it's still comparatively easier to put a strong aegis in place than to get rid of it.
Normally fights within the Order are in the context of a Wizard's War, which are rarely declared on an entire covenant. Dispelling a covenant's aegis to get to your wizard's legal enemy would likely be prosecuted as a minor crime for damage to a foreign covenant, and possibly as a major crime for deprivation of power due to forcing the covenant to waste its vis on renewing their aegis, unless the attacker took proactive steps to mitigate any damage he did such as paying for the vis of the new aegis, or attacking on the eve of the aegis's renewal, or something along those lines that would muddy the case. Not to mention the risk of being held responsible for accidental damage, such as unleashing a creature within the aegis that currently can't release itself, or allowing supernatural creatures hostile to that covenant to enter their aegis as a result of your action.
1 Like
It is trivial but hardly discreet. While in a full on covenant on covenant wizard's war it is fine to destroy the aegis like the walls of Jericho, simply being shielded from its effects while the hosts are unsure is something else.