This is thread is meant as a focused offshoot of the discussion on "container" Targets (Circle, Room, Structure, Boundary - and I guess also Aura, Road, and possibly Fire and Storm) ensuing from the most recent proposal by David Chart.
The proposal is simple and elegant. Spells targeting containers can work in two ways:
Type 1: they affect, while the spell lasts, all valid targets that were in the container at the time of casting. Type 2: while the spell lasts, they affect all valid targets that happen to be in the container, for as long as they remain in the container.
The proposal ends with a sentence on wards (which, to be fair, can be easily excised by any troupe wanting to house-rule it away without side effects). Wards, including the Aegis, are always of Type 1, and target the volume inside the container. Thus, they effectively work as Type 2, except that if the container moves, they remain anchored in space where they are. So if you ward a chest against water (with T:Room), water cannot enter the chest as long as it remains stationary. After that, it can enter the chest, but it still cannot enter the empty space previously occupied by the chest.
I dislike this last addition, because seems to add nothing to the game while being harmful in at least two ways.
The first is aesthetic, and it has two parts.
a) One thing I like of ArM5 is that you cannot target abstract space. You cannot dispel all magic in a cube of side 20 meters. You need a symbolic anchor: you can dispel magic in a circle, in a building, etc. This remains true in the entire proposal, except for lingering wards. A ship on which you cast Aegis of the Hearth, or Ward against Demons, leaves behind a ship-shaped "magic field" as soon as it moves. I find this very un-mythical.
b) In addition, this provision adds a level of complexity to the entire mechanic of containers; even though David Chart was very, very good at rephrasing everything in such a way that it was as simple as possible.
The second is about game dynamics, and it also has two parts.
a) A number of saga-enabling effects suddenly become impossible. For example, long ago we played a saga with a covenant built on the back of a gigantic sea-turtle that took it around to new locales. Under the new proposal, the covenant would not be able to have an Aegis. It also would not be able to raise the wards that kept water out when the sea-turtle dived, as it occasionally did bringing us to explore hidden underwater stuff! There are many other similar folklore effects that, although not essential to a saga, would be neat and become impossible: wards against vermin on wagons, wards against demons on a ship cabin, etc.
b) I suspect that there are shenanigans that can be played out with the "immobile afterimage" of a ward. One thing I find particularly ... ugly, is that if you want to create a ward in abstract space (say, a big tetrahedron, 10 meters to the side, hanging suspended 2 meters above the ground) you can create a D:Mom container, ward it, and then have the ward remain as the container vanishes. I suspect this could be abused.
This thread is then meant to discuss:
- the advantages of the "immobile wards" provision (I see none, but...).
- the "aesthetic" disadvantages.
- the "practical" disadvantages.