Which solves the usual problem associated with such*, and yet still leaves it open to interpretation by SG/troupe. Nice.
(* like expecting that carving a "sword" on a ring would suffice to enchant the ring, or a sword w/ a big CrCo healing spell enchantment, etc.)
Mark that's an interesting point about major vs minor. I'd say if the focus allows any kind of effect with weapons and armor, then it should be major. But if it is only minor, then the focus is only useful for directly affecting the item itself. I like that distinction.
What about a Minor Focus in eagles when used to enchant an effect in the familiar bond to give cat's eyes to a magus with an eagle familiar?
Chris
Doesnt this also go back to the question on the "Minor focus Wands" automatically being valid for any enchantments into wands?
I think that would fail the laugh test.
You don't really need particularly strong rules around this, just let the troupe decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular application is pushing the definition of the focus too much or not.
I wasn't sure before asking, but now it seems the common opinion of where this conversation has headed is distinctly non-canonical. My example is a very clearly allowed use of a focus in eagles:
The familiar equivalent of a focus in wooden wands applying to all enchantments in wooden wands is definitely allowed. While this does not imply the same is true for the wooden wands focus, it does show any interpretation of foci that prevents such an application to any power in the familiar bond is non-canonical.
Chris
OTOH, powers invested in the familair bond are already quite limited: IIRC, you can't enchant a PoF in your bond with the aforementioned Eagle.
Well, yes, you could.
Only, it would be limted to target either you or said Eagle (also: R: voice might make trouble for you).
EDIT: apologies, Eagle, not owl
Well, you know what I meant.
Applied to a "swords" focus, a similar limitation would mean that any enchantment would be restricted to those that can affect the sword. Cool, but quite quite limiting, since you couldn't even make a "holy" sword that smites demons with DEO
I most certainly did - it was just too good to pass up 
A DEO sword that smithes demons when you smack them with your sword would be perfectly fine, no? 
Guess you have no immunity to fire in your sagas. being able to become a live POF can be quite useful when you are brawling or need to be a spectacular man on fire. Quite a lot of uses I can see for being the equivalent of the human torch.
Xavi
yes, that bit was specifically refering to lmitations set on a familiar bon, which obviously do not apply to items unless and until some verditius figures out how to bind an item as a familiar (and not as a talisman).
It's still not allowed to target people/things you touch, explicitly only you or the familiar itself.
The "don't touch me, I'm on fire!" is infact fully available for familiars (and bonded magi) via the Aura of Fire (ArM5 p.105), but that's still not a PoF 
Last flight of the phoenix (range: personal, IIRC from HOH:S) is a personal range spell. Basically you turn yourself into the epicentre of a fire nuke. So it can be done. If you are on fire (flame on!) you are bound to burn the things you touch, right?
Cheers,
Xavi
Legacy? Where did it appear before? This is the first instance where I jhave seen such a spell myself.... It appears in concept in the old iberia book (final spell of Flambeau, for an EPIC ending of a founder), but AFAIK it was not stated (given stats) before.
One problem with Ars is that "area of effect" spells centered on a magus and travelling to a certain distance all around are really difficult to create if you want them to work in the russian steppe (no boundaries)
Nope, did not see the aura of flame thing. My bad. It is basically the same effect yes. Much higher damage than a POF, BTW
Cheers,
Xavi
It's easy enough if the effect is just burn stuff - CrIg Range: touch, Duration: whatever, Target: ind + size magnitudes, Re requisite +1 move with magus +1 without burning magus.
Targeting things within a mobile zone is trickier but how about this: we know T: building can apply to mobile structures such as ships at sea so if we have a mobile construct with clearly defined inside and out, fixed shape, fixed size that is permeable to the types of thing we want to affect then we can target that with an appropriate ongoing T: building spell. Cr(Re)Im to make a visible but transparent dome that moves as the caster wills will do nicely.
It's not a rego requisite for "no burning magus" because that's an unnatural property and thus need muto.
It's Rego because the Magus is protected by from the fire. Rego is protection also. I remember (nobles parma) several examples of Rego being used in just such a manner
And I wouldn't allow it, because the target is not the same: a ward target is the "what is protected against", and a spell target is "what is subject".
Wards are an exception to the common magic theory, and it shouldn't be canon to do so; rather use muto to give the unnatural property of "burn anyone, except me".
Yes it is done this way in canon, such as with Coat of Flame (in reverse). In that case Rego is used to protect everything else from the fire so only the person is burned. The idea is that you control where the flame goes and where it doesn't go.
Chris