Apropos of nothing, because I'm not going to post a response that says something remarkably similar to what Ayra did. But: do we really not have an Aegis lab text?!?
(Go go gadget Claudia!)
Can you possibly read what I say? I was quoting page 161. What you said above about the casting penalty is not what you say below.
To me, this suggests that casting a spell with 0 penetration cannot be cast within a foreign Aegis without a token or requires a positive penetration score and then may be cast forcelessly. By RAW that is not the case. So you appeared to be revising and extending the House Rule, which is why I asked for clarification.
A character has a CT of 40 for Pilum of Fire, he enters a 40th level foreign Aegis. He can still cast Pila of Fire, since his CT will be 40-(40/2)=20. They won't have any penetration, but they'll still take out grogs just as well. Suppose he has a CT of 38, his CT is now 18, still sufficient to cast the spell, and IMO, still sufficient to take out grogs. This is how I understand RAW. Is this how you understand it, as well?
If you make a House Rule, and someone questions it, it's fair to get a full understanding of that House Rule, even if it involves revisiting it, when you appeared to be extending the scope of the rule, based on my quote from you about:
That statement clearly contradicts RAW.
I do believe this is "by deisgn." The Aegis, as far as I can tell, is cast by Magical Merceres on our behalf with our participation. We owe them for this, too, IIRC. I had brought Sophia knowing Aegis, but hers was a lower level than the current aegis in effect. Maybe there's a nice Bonisagus who could invent one. ((I had been thinking about this as a player for covenant service, but as a character Tektonius has no idea what the current Aegis situation is, he's too new.))
headdesk
fixer's statement was about a MuCo cast by an item with 0 Pen. My response to him was regarding that specific instance he brought up-- where it was cast by an item. My post originally had said that explicitly-- I had cut and paste that operative clause (or so I thought) because I'd originally posted with a misplaced modifier, but I guess i just cut it without pasting.
i would so like for this entire morning not to have happened.
No Aegis text-- that wasn't by design. At first it was an oversight. Lamentus always cast the Aegis. Then with chico playing Lamentus' filius, Aequi came in with an Aegis, and had plans to transcribe all of Lamentus' lab texts. Then chico fell off the face of the earth.
For shits and grins, Shmuel can know how to cast Aegis if y'all want. It'll go to his already enormous head. At the very least he can tell you where Lamentus' untranslated lab text is.
I didn't see that, I was responding to what you quoted, which didn't mention an item at all. Further, rereading Fixer's post, didn't seem to point to an item and your quote about an item seemed to be a non sequitur which I just ignored.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, really not. I'm just trying to understand the full scope of the House Rule as it is. You know where I stand on it, I can live with it. I just maintain it has a lot of gotchas like this.
Now, let's fight over in the other game. 
hug
Yeah, he was talking about an item, and I'm not sure where he was going with that post either.
(Emphasis mine)
Do you need me to say it? I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not attractive.
No, I should have moved his post before replying to it in a different thread. That or actually pasted the operative clause. That or be less anal about grammar.
I still maintain: I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not attractive.
That's okay, I actually had to stop and try to figure out what the deuce "Aegides" were.
And I never could figure out just what Apromorians are. I'm guessing it's a Flambeau thing. (the only thing Google found was this forum shrug )
Sorry, but I gotta go with JL on this one 
Apromor: School of Apromor for House Flambeau. The perdo specialists of the House.
Oh. I thought they were the cute cuddly little Flambeaux with the long hair. Or was that Pomeranian?
The Pomeranians are the ancient enemies of the Bjornaer... So yeah, cute fluffy puppies that throw balls of fire sounds about right.
Don't you remember my Flambeau concept from Legacy of Rome: Attempting to fuse Schools of Sebastian, Vilano and Apromor?
I'm so crushed. 
I don't participate or follow that forum. The SG's selective punctuation would drive me batshit.
Heck, I'm not sure I remember my own character concept from Legacy of Rome anymore.
The Apromor were my very first ArM love. I think every character I played before Iapetus was an Apromor... And Iapetus was trained as an Apromor for a bit too.
You must be exercising great restraint for me, then! 
Arya. Please. You don't need to SPEAK IN CAPS IN ALL YOUR SENTENCES to have a discussion with people. It is useless, and doesn't paint you in a good light.
No, this is exactly the contrary to what I've said.
I, like everyone I've seen, take it like explaining when are items affected or not by the Aegis.
For magi and creatures, it's clear, you can give them a token.
But for items? You can't give a token to an item. So of I'm a magus and create one, is it affected by my aegis or not? This answers that question.
=> spells cast from an item are resisted just like spells from a magi or powers from a creature:
- If coming from the outside and affecting someone inside, they must penetrate the aegis
- If cast inside, their CT or Penetration is reduced (this is one exemple in which a MR of 0 is better than nothing).
I can understand how you could read this sentence in the Aegis text that way, though, so it was a bad exemple.
Let me give you a better, clear-cut one then:
I'm inside a lvl 40 aegis, with a token. I cast a Ward vs Heat & Fire, failing by 6 with a penetration skill of 2. I lose 1 fatigue, but the spell goes of, with a pen of -4. Despite this negative penetration, it works just fine. If my token is revoked, the spell is not dispelled, even though I would be unable to cast a similar spell now. Despite its Penetration of -24, the spell is still quite useful as a ward.
You can replace it by a Might 05 creature inside a lvl 100 aegis. It'll even be able to raise its ward when its token is revoked, despite having a Pen of -95, because you don't have to roll to use a power, which means that, if it doesn't need to penetrate, it always works.
Just like you don't have to roll to do your Parma Magica ritual, which allows you to do it, and thus raise it, even in an hostile aegis.
Note that even what happens to spells like that cast outside is not clear:
Spells that try to affect something inside fizzle if they fail to penetrate. This is clear, and logical IMO, like trying to affect someone under Parma.
But existing spells like invisibility are "blocked". What does this means? That the invisible character can't enter the Aegis, just like he couldn't punch a character with a high MR? Or that they are dispelled? And if so, why not use that wording? I seem to recall David Chart saying specifically that he didn't want the Aegis to dispell existing effects because this would mean that, to dispell a curse, one would only have to enter an Aegis.
It was absolutely not settled.
You discussed it with JL and PB on May 30 to May, 31, JL reaching an agreement with you, to work with you:
I answered on Jun 1, just one little day later, saying I disagreed.
I was immediately followed by Qcipher, who proposed solutions similar to mine.
Both our posts were completely and utterly ignored.