I've not been able to find this question written IC. Please indicate it for me?
???
What, I have to find your post for you? How many has he made IC? 
Couple posts after S. introduces himself, the post that starts with:
"Scipio accompanies Vispilius in silence,...
Here's the timestamp info I see, tho' with the diff in time zones yours will be some other variety of "#:34"
It's definitely there: "... amber-eyed guardsmen..."
Why so short friend? Your post gave me the impression that you had asked about the guardsmen's amber eyes ICly, rather than OOCly. Which is what I could not find... and is the venue I think most fitting for discussing them.
There has been some worry about arcane connections - if, say, a Necromancer (Hermetic, Hedge or other) has created a zombie, is that an AC back to him? Just because you've cast a spell on a target, you don't have an AC to that target, do you? (Unless, given the description, the Necromancer planned ahead, and has a pocket with a hundred or so AC's, all organized by zombie and ready to use!)
I would say that any 'active' spell/effect cast by any given mage is an AC to them much as a magical item they create is. So the matter would be, is a zombie considered an active effect? I would be inclined to say yes. A target merely affected by a spell briefly I would say no, or at least the connection would be so fleeting as to be of no consequence. But a zombie is a persisting/lingering enchantment... and so the connection would be as well IMO.
Not in the book, but sounds reasonable. Or, maybe if the caster can somehow can alter the ongoing spell effect or control the target - creating a stone and walking away from it - not so much. But if they still have "active control" over the zombies, even if that needs concentration, then Rego seems to be qualitatively different than a simple Creo or Muto effect.
But we still have little to worry about them having an AC to the body, just because of the spell. They'd have to have a diff connection.
Apologies - that came off more curt than intended, which intent was more a "sheesh" in jest, rather than a "dammit" in condemnation tone of voice.
But, regardless, I had hoped for an OOC confirmation/clarification of the eyes, at least - I'd like to be as clear on what Vispilius is seeing as he is, regardless of Scipio's response to inquiries re such.
He's not so crass as to say "HEY! Those guys got amber eyes! They elves er sumfin?!"
So, regardless of the IC implications and reactions - OOC, to be clear on what there for any IC to see - "amber eyes" - as in "not human", or just "light brown", or what?
If it's the same to you, I'd rather not know the result of the dice. While in tabletop it's often not convenient to keep such secret, in PbP there's nothing lost, and everything gained. Hard to keep some OOC knowledge as OOC - by knowing that he's pretty much "seen what there is to see", it's hard(er) to make IC decisions based on risks unknown IC (but known OOC), and be sure they're as IC as they might be.
(Also, for me, I'd rather read something that looks like a brief narrative passage as opposed to a transcript from a tabletop game.)
But it's hardly a dealbreaker.
Ah, my apologies for the the misunderstanding. 
A clearly 'other than normal' deep and solid amber eye only broken by the presence of the pupil. Scipio has them as well.
Comment from our storyguide would be welcome here from me. I'd consider the previously discussed AC from a constant enchantment to it's creator to work both ways. i.e. the mage would also be a link to his spell.
Is Scipio the only mage who knows Wizard's Communion? If not I'd be curious to know, preferably handwaved as IC information, what strength of communion the others know?
Not the kid, sorry. 8)
There is no(?) support for this in the RAW. An enchanted device has been given a strong association by the time and effort put into it, but a spell is just "zap", the mysticness flows thru, and is changed, there it is, done.
MS's recent exposition on "Parts and Wholes" notwithstanding, as described AC's are defined in the rules by the time and proximity the target has spent associated with the subject, the connection with the connectee. There is not so much as a hint in the core rules that a spell affords this same connection. (In fact, Quasitores usually are described as requiring exhaustive work to track down the sigil of a working spell, and from there having trouble finding the magus in question - no AC to provide a GPS plot.)
If TF wants to change that, cool by me (I think...), but it ~is~ a big change, with ~huge~ implications on spellcasting. Imagine...o Any non-permanent healing spell makes that grog/animal an AC
o Any uncanceled spell with Duration: Sun lingers as an AC
o Any created target is an AC
o Any Muto'd target is an AC
o Any waiting spell is an AC
o Any spell with any duration is an AC... and that's a lot.Suddenly, casting anything with a duration is a liability - and for PC's a cheesy easy plot shortcut to solving an arcane mystery! The faerie knight curses the Recap - no prob, it's now an AC, life is good, hurray!...
Hi,
Although improving the ability to use ACs might be an interesting initiatory path for the right cult.
(Even enchanted devices are not ACs to the creator, canonically, at least not for long. Talismans are.)
Anyway,
Ken
I wouldn't really consider any/all spells/effects a permanent AC. I'm not certain if I'd really consider any of them 'permanent'. Not all spells would even generate an AC at all really. But in the same manner of a magical item imv a lengthy ( in casting, duration, or outright connection to the target ) would have the potential to be so adjudicated. Take a classic spellcasting example.... PoF. Not something I would say generates any real connection. A quick, relatively simple, spell that has little meta-connection to the target and is rather mundane in it's effects. No AC, no argument.
Now think about something at the other extreme of the spectrum. A mentem ritual that binds the target as a mental slave for the rather extended duration and lets the caster give orders at range. I'd say this would, imo rather obviously, constitute an AC if it had existed for very long at all. If the effect is ongoing I'd say the AC stays 'brand new' for it's duration and starts to fade ( perhaps in the 'days' category, or longer if the period of binding was especially long ) immediately after the effect is dispelled or expires.
The zombie I'd consider something inbetween. If it has something in it's makeup that allows it's creator to control it at a distance, I'd say it would be the same. That makes a connection basically a part of the design of the effect. Now... if it doesn't have that then the connection would be much more fleeting and determined by how it's created and how long the creature lasts etc. The longer something is exposed to either the caster in it's creation or the magic itself, the more of a connection that builds. A simple zombie that is created by ritual magic, can be commanded by voice, lasts a year etc... straight out of ArM5... I'd say would be an AC for only a certain amount of time after it's creation. I'd say counted in 'days' though perhaps 'hours'.
Now... I'd also say, regardless of the theoretical 'degree of connection' generated, you still need to meet a few basic requirements for involving something as an AC in magic. The AC has to be something physical/tangible, and somehow clearly in your possession/control. Assume for instance that this zombie is an AC. We can't use it as that in our sorcery unless we subdue it without destroying it and have it at our leisure to use as a casting 'prop'. You couldn't just point at a zombie in a necromancer's horde, claim it as a chink in their armor, and claim penetration bonuses. You 'may' be able to claim those bonuses if the zombie is fresh enough from it's maker's magic ( i.e. an AC ) and you've got it's head/hand/whatever in your hand and inscribed with a few runes/whatever.
In the example of the fae curse and redcap, I wouldn't consider that to have a lasting AC. If any only in the 'hours' category and I would consider that a bit of a stretch. It doesn't take long to do/isn't ritual and isn't actively connected to the caster that I am aware of. I may change my mind if the guy was under the effect constantly for a few years... but that would be an anomaly.
Of course, our SG may disagree with my view completely, and in which case we will, having gotten to know one another a little better, continue in that new direction. 
I can agree with that- there seems to be a qualitative difference between, say, creating a stone wall and walking away, and enslaving a living mind, which you can then control continuously and from a distance.
But, especially considering the finer gradations that present themselves*, where is the line drawn? An AC is either there (potentially) or not. Unlike many other aspects of the game, this one is binary - either it works, or it doesn't. If we are to keep to the rules, "Association" has to be the touchstone - is there an "association" (as explained in those rules) between a spellcaster (hermetic or otherwise) and an ongoing effect that can be manipulated*?
(* Like, for instance, the ReHe staves that Vispilius rides upon!)
Well, it's nice to know you have something you can fall back on. 8)
It's going to be interesting to see how you use that, and how you avoid the "self-imposed death sentence" that usually comes, as an engraved invitation, with it (or IF you do!)
Hi,
Self-imposed death sentence? He'll stay conscious if he doesn't botch. And he's not likely to botch. Of course, even if all goes well, it's the last thing he does this encounter. So let's hope Vispilius notices something!
But yeah, it's nice to have something to fall back on.
Anyway,
Ken
We are all in the hands of Timothy.... :>
Not talking about right now, but about the extended future of the Virtue. I think we touched on this before - I've never seen a mage with that virtue that hasn't killed themselves, one way or another. Not that they actually cast themselves to death, but they fatigue themselves to a huge penalty from which they can't dig themselves out, and/or unconsciousness in one final effort that falls just short, and then the grogs are sans magus (or at least sans magic), and that's all she wrote!
Iohannes has already done it at least twice, and may be about to again, but there have so far always been other magi there in support. Sooner or later, he'll be alone, and have a moral decision to make... 8)
Hi,
grin Yeah. I normally consider LLSM a virtue worth avoiding. With Iohannes, I break all my usual rules for creating AM characters. Two things make LLSM worthwhile here:
-
I've taken Charmed Life with it (and hope that Timothy is generous with Confidence points; my usual guideline for a virtue like Charmed Life is "avoid it.")
-
I've been allowed to use Withstand Casting with LLSM.
Nevertheless, the limitations of this approach are painfully manifest even now. Vispilius can cast and cast and cast, unless he botches under stress. It's painful having to wait for the right moment to cast, because you're absolutely right; it will really suck if Iohannes casts the wrong spell and finds himself at -5. I'm even regretting the measly 1 FL lost from that fog spell, which may be protecting the ship from magic cast at Sight, but is definitely preventing anyone other than Iohannes from seeing more than three or four paces.
Clearly, I should have used some of those nine years to have him initiated into the secrets of Diedne Magic (a pretty suckful virtue as written). But that wouldn't help him much either in this case; DM isn't vaguely worthwhile until a magus has very good Arts.
The real answer is to create an item that a rested grog or crewman can use to exchange fatigue with Iohannes when he is weary....
Anyway,
Ken
A spell effect, of itself, is not an Arcane Connection. If I'd known that the Flaw that made your sigil an AC to you was not in the new edition I would have put it in the Jerbiton chapter, ebcause it woild have been a very cool thing. Basically, though, no, if you cast Ward Against Biting Insects, someone can't stand on that ring and use it to get a penetration multiplier. For one thing, it makes a weak Aegis far weaker, since magical, infernal, faerie and divine creatures can use AC and penetration, too.
I think I've answered all my pending public messages: poke me if I've missed yours, please.
Agreed. I somewhat revised my view in my following post on the subject. Just having an effect on something isn't enough. I do however think long use of magic on something is much like if not more association building/connective than mundane use... and could/should lead to something becoming an AC. Sort of how I described it in my other post. Of course that is all at your discretion.
Is there any particular effect acheived by casting Demon's Eternal Oblivion say on something/someone that is possessed? i.e. Can you target the taint while not affecting the tainted thing?