Mechanics of the Intangible Tunnel.

First, some quotes from the relevant verbage:

Rego Vim Guidelines

Opening the Intangible Tunnel

Alright. That said... I am still left wondering what the exact limits of the use of this type of effect are.

It seems pretty clear that one could, for example, cast a mentem spell to implant a suggestion through this without a problem. Fireball directly at the target of the tunnel, no problem.

Now for a couple of tricky ones.

Presume that the caster has an Intellego Imagonem or similar effect to perceive the other end of the tunnel.

Fireball targeting not the target of the tunnel yet something in it's vicinity. This I'm not sure about. The Tunnel spell description says that another caster can use the end of the tunnel for it's range to the caster. Could not the caster likewise cast, with supplementary perceptions/senses, through the tunnel at a different target using this same range mechanic?

A Rego (Whatever Form You Please) effect to instantly transport something, say, fifty paces. If you have a Tunnel up, and you are 'touch' range to the end-point... why couldn't you start your fifty paces from the tunnel terminus? Or likewise hit a target with a low-magnitude, short distance-moving, high penetration rego corpus to pull them through the tunnel to you?

Basically the question is to what extent does the 'conduit' effect of Rego Vim manipulate Range? The description says 'any spell of greater than personal range' ... yet also 'on that target'.

Theoretically, especially since it allows spells to flow both ways, this seems a 'wormhole' effect for spells/magic in general. It seems logical to me that it would allow for the bending of ranges through the effect as well, yet I'm not sure if the verbage supports the idea.

Personally I'm inclined to say it should either not allow backflow ( i.e. simply establish 'arcane connection range' to the target for another supplemented spell ) or, work as a 'wormhole'-like conduit for magic as I described... for consistency.


First of all: the spells states that you can only target the original target of the IT spell. So IMO you cannot affect anything else at the other side (no PoF'ing his allies or lifting a stone at that side to hit him). Crystal dart for instance will probably not work.

You can apparently use voice and sight spells without a problem, eventhough the two of you don't hear or see each other. I would prohibit the 'eye' range, since that specifically states direct eye contact.

You cannot target the room or structure a person is standing in, but you can use the same arcane connection you used for the IT as AC to the room I guess. (for summoning the distant image etc.)

IMO you will remain 'in touch' with the tunnel at all times, you cannot just step back and use voice ranged spells to prevent the other person from casting back at you. This is mostly because this 'flaw' in IT has proven too much fun in our saga already. Besides, the spell is powerfull enough as it is, no need for such dasterdly trickery.

I would rule that the other side can also use spells "with a range greater than personal" to cast PoF back at you for instance.

This is explicitly stated as an effect of the spell... so I agree.

Why not? - Extrapolate this spell through the various ranges/targets and look at how it affects different types of things.

If I have an AC to a place, like a stone that links me to a certain hill/clearing/building/whatever... Why couldn't I open the tunnel to that building and throw target structure/room stuff through? If I have tunnel open to someone standing in a place, and I had a perception effect going, why couldn't I use that to target the room and channel spells?

I'm not sure what this was in response to... but in response myself, I'd say this is very dependent on how you set up your 'conduit' spell. If it's the classical 'intangible tunnel' spell, then the conduit is directly from you to the target. Spells flow both ways through it, wherever either one goes. So yes, I agree in that version there is no running away from your own tunnel (or one openned on you). However... if you took the same spell and designed it into a ring to build a connection between a target and the ring, instead of between the target and you... then I'd say you could run away. Because then the spells are going to ground out on the ring, not on you. You would be casting spells at the tunnel terminus on your end, in the ring, to send them to the target... the same as if you were another mage on the 'other end' in the spell description.

Basically my point, and question really, is that I see this 'conduit' type of effect as, obviously, an all-purpose range shortcut. Spells can be channeled through this tunnel both ways and have their ranges calculated as if the intervening space between the ends of the tunnel doesn't exist... only the ranges to and from the ends of the tunnel and the target.

This is based on the reading of the 'conduit' guideline and the range language in the spell description as to another mage, which I read as other than your target, being able to throw effects down the tunnel.

That disctinction I view as important. This isn't just an effect that opens up an arcane connection channel between you and the target that can sustain spells. This can sustain/conduct spells from anyone... as long as they can throw the spell at the tunnel. Which I would think should be consistently applied at both ends. i.e. Your friends should be able to use your tunnel as well, from your end.

If people see this as something that is much more limited then I would have to question the mechanic that allows other things/people to throw effects back at you. It just draws into question the way that the tunnel functions.

So.... how do you other folks see the tunnel as operating? What do you see it as doing, if you don't see it the way I do?

I've always considered intangible tunnel to be an inappropriate name. There is no tunnel. There is simply a connection of two points.

Magus a casts the IT and is linked magically by the spell to the target to which he has an AC (magus B).

Magus A can start chucking spells into his intangible tunnel to affect his target. He could certainly use an InIm spell to see his target and his targets surroundings. He could not target those surroundings though, because he has no link to them. His link is to magus B. He could affect those targets but using a spell with an area effect (e.g. a CrIg spell with a size modifier to get nice explosion) but this is purely collateral damage.

Magus B, should he work out whats going on, can use the same connection to chuck spells back at magus A until Magus A cancels the spell.

The word tunnel is a bit misleading because it suggests a physical wormhole which you can throw things through (spells) rather than what the spell actually does, which is make other spells work at AC range.

IT is however a fantastic spell and if you get a nice high level version you can do all kinds of fun things.

We use it IMS to spy on folks, break their legs at a distance (on a target that was fleeing us) and remotely dominate people. Good clean fun.

I agree that the tunnel is only for magic. It doesn't actually open up a physical tunnel. It does however seem to operate much like a wormhole, for magic.

Your example, Magus A targetting Magus B, is I think mostly correct. However your interpretation of the mechanics does not account for the example in the spell discription of a Magus C, nearby 'Target' B, casting spells into/down the tunnel with similarly reduced range. So the effect then obviously has a greater manipulation of range/magic than opening a two way arcane connection channel strictly between two individuals?

That is what I am getting at/asking about. How does this affect magic flowing one way or the other in the tunnel? Range for any secondary spells appears to be only calculated from the caster to one linked item/target of the spell. Then it flows to the other end and hits. This, in the standard version of the spell, is the caster and a target that is usually a person. But it doesn't have to be a person. Or a single person even. It could be a castle (structure). Or a room, or a group of people. Or a group of items.

What would the effect then be of creating a ring with this same effect linked to, for example, another place be? How would that manipulate spells?

There is a lot of grayness here in regards to how this spell works at different increments of range/target. And to how exactly it functions in the standard example anyway.

Why should some other bystander, other than the target, be able to cast spells back along the tunnel (a third party being involved in this connection) and the caster of said tunnel not be able to target someone/thing other than the target of the spell ( if they have some means of perceiving said targets )? That seems like a very inconsistent mechanic to me. The connection is there, in the conduit effect. The perception is there...

The 'conduit' effect either works a given way, or it doesn't, in my view.

So either you allow a bit more flex for the caster of the tunnel effect or you cut out other third party types from being able to cast into the far end.

No further discussion available?

I'm not looking for a debate here... I'm actually seeking clarity. But I'm seeing some incongruities with the stuff as it's written.

(Deciding if I want an argument or "getting hit on the head" lessons.)