I didn't answer this the first time, though I was tempted, because I'd already pointed out, in detail, how that reasoning was wrong, and I didn't want to be argumentative. I tried to ignore that whole post, because it was clear we agreed on most of the substance, even if we disagreed on what the RAW are.
Nonetheless, let me say it again. Note that last sentence, "Anything that comes directly from the magus’s own magics in the same season cannot." Neither "from the magus' own magic" or "in the same season" need be true of a permanent Ring spell--that is, the test fails on two counts. Likewise, the test presented earlier in the same section, "[c]asting spells on a daily or monthly basis", also does not apply to a permanent Ring spell--and Tellus was referring, explicitly, to permanent Ring spells, making any point about other types of spells moot.
I don't know if you're just missing something, or if you need your preferred way of doing things to be RAW, rather than accepting you need a house rule, because you believe that the RAW are the inerrant word of G...er, Chart, and any apparent problems must be explained away. No matter what the case, the rules clearly are not what you say they are.
I think permanent Ring spells in the laboratory are frigging annoying, and broken, but I understand they're part of the RAW, like them or not, and that eliminating them requires a house rule, just as, while I believe that requiring wards to penetrate was not put into the rules intentionally (no matter what G...er, David said when someone noticed the problem), having wards penetrate is the RAW, and I do in fact change that with a house rule in my saga.
Yes, and I already suggested doing that, in my original post of the thread. Both obvious and old news.
You, Tellus, and I cleary do disagree on one important point of substance: whether it's worthwhile to incorporate a bonus that will, in effect, apply to every lab. You think that's OK, and Tellus and I don't. I can see both arguments, but it's largely a matter of preference, and there's not much more to be said about it--let alone a need to wrap this essentially aesthetic disagreement in a pointless argument about what the RAW are.
And to be clear what both arguments are:
Argument #1: If you leave Magical Heating and Lighting in the rules, even though every lab woud logically have them, you create unnecessary bookkeeping--and frankly, it's inelegant. An additional issue is that many new players are going to miss the point that every lab would have these Virtues. Most times, this won't be a problem, since everyone in a group will play the same way, and once one person knows, everyone will (though there might be annoyance once the group figures it out). However, in certain circumstances, like when players are doing "Extremely Complex Character Generation" for an elder magi saga, this little quirk puts the characters of ignorant players at a slight relative disadvantage.
Note also that the RAW already in effect eliminate the Superior Heating and Lighting Virtues, because only a pyromaniac would want the extra Upkeep and Virtue space, when the magical varieties are essentially free. Including completely useless Virtues in the rules, especially if they're presented as being useful, is, again, both inelegant and confusing.
Argument #2: If you wrap Magical Heating and Lighting into the lab baseline, you lose the bonuses to Health, Aesthetics, Texts, Im, and Ig that every magus would get. The loss of two points of Aesthetics I suspect is not going to trouble many people; the loss of a point of Health (again, to every magus) is more serious, but at least affects everyone equally. However, the loss of the bonuses to Texts, Im, and Ig will place characters who want those lab specializations at a slight relative disadvange.
In short, if you do accept that essentially costless Magical Heating and Lightings is in the RAW, neither way of resolving the situation is entirely satisfactory, making the choice between the two one of preference.
Did I miss something, or can we move on now?
Scott