Your interpretation of RAW is very wide.
Here's what RAW says about magical wards, generally.
It then says the following about circle wards
That's very questionable as to whether they can do something to the thing within the circle with something other than the From warded against. Such as shooting an arrow. The action is completed before it ever crosses the circle, and it does seem to be an indirect thing, which indirect action can't cause the destruction of the circle. Finally, even if this is RAW, it's relatively confining and the magus had better stockpiled enough food and water. Because if you can't shoot across the ward, then you can't pass food across it, either.
Jonathan, you skipped the most important thing in your quote. You skipped the whole thing about not being able to act across the ward. That is what was being referenced. Read the part I quoted above (the last post before yours) vis-a-vis Richard's statement.
Where does the act begin and end? Shooting an arrow from a bow happens before the circle. Working magic happens before the circle.
If I set fire to the building to burn the building down around the ReCo warded thing, I've taken an action against the thing warded against (by that definition) and therefore should not be allowed. If I work a spell to bring the building down around the circle, the person in the circle would be unharmed, because my action, my intention, was to bring the building down to destroy the circle, or kill the magus, which I may not do because you can't damage the circle even indirectly nor act across it.
Assume I summon a Faerie (not humanoid shape) to destroy the circle, by even that definition of indirectly being unable to destroy the circle, I can't do it. I'm not destroying the circle, I'm asking that it be done. Even having a Faerie friend (still not humanoid) already there, I can't ask them to destroy it, because that, too, is an indirect action.
I get what's being said, but it's an impossible thing to enforce. A warded thing within can't actually ask something of the Form warded against for assistance. A ReCo warded familiar, can't communicate with his Magus outside of the circle, right? A person warded by ReCo can't communicate with any person outside the circle, they can't ask for food or water to be pushed through.
I guess my main objection to the failure of RAW here is that this understanding creates an anti-magic shield, which I seriously doubt is the intention of ReCo wards.
If you're feeling like playing the rules cautiously, just remove all doubt by adding a Vim requisite. Stops everything a normal ReCo ward stops, plus it extra-special-stops the Corpus-being's magic, just in case the SG rules that the normal ReCo ward doesn't. (Of course, then you'd probably have to argue for adding Vim requisites to all the Form-specific wards to stop the creature's Powers, which would probably be the single most inelegant rules failure in existence.)
ReCo ward against a person.
A person can't cross the ward, nor act across it, nor break it either directly or indirectly.
Can the person hold a pole to push something on the other side? If yes, then can the person hold a glove to do it? Then essentially the person's clothing can cross it, but the person cannot. So, you could cast touch-range magic across a ward you cannot touch across. So we probably don't want a person wielding something across the ward.
Now take a step back. Can you throw a rock across the boundary. I expect many would say yes because that's action on the rock, not across the ward.
That would seem to match the idea of magic resistance not protecting against a flung rock but protecting against the rock that is actively pushed, so this is how I like it. That also allows for more consistency. So I don't think I would let someone CrIg a BoAF over such a ward (assuming it penetrates the magus's PM) because the magus is directly acting across the ward. Same thing with thrusting a spear from outside at a target inside. But firing an arrow would be acting on a bow to act on an arrow and then the arrow passes through the ward, which can bypass the ward. That leaves such wards as quite effective but with lots of ways to bypass them.
I hadn't presented any way when you wrote that. You misinterpreted what I wrote. I pointed out the line the Richard was referencing and some on the other side of the argument seemed to be ignoring or have forgotten. All I did was present what is actually written in RAW, and if that makes you think it should be at Richard says, that is your own interpretation of RAW, not mine. Remember I wrote this when I showed the quote:
I have now posted generally what I think, which allows for some casting across but not all, depending on where the magus makes the magic and where it proceeds from there.
You could argue that it only specifies that for circle wards or wards against stuff with might or both. And you can argue about what constitutes indirect, or acting across. Page 162 has a ward against demons would definitely stop demons from harming someone inside. I would argue firing an arrow or using a power to harm someone still means the demon is harming someone.
This is not a mini-Aegis for several reasons. First it doesn't provide general magic resistance. It must penetrate to provide any protection AND exceed might AND be against the right target. Most notably it presumably causes warping. You would need at least five wards, and sixth if you didn't want a stray rhino breaking anything. All of which are level 30+ unless you want big ones to be able to get through. Finally, some creatures have ways to skip past wards, such as dropping from their realm or possession and that would leave you without the Aegis's penalty to casting totals.
Yes. That's why I wrote circle in parts of what I wrote. I don't think it works that way for an individual ward. For example, if warding to protect you from damage via human contact means nothing to the magus creating a huge amount of fire right in front of your face that scorches you.
Oh, I forgot one of the simpler methods: MuAn. Make the animal really small and keep it in a little pouch tucked somewhere on your person, under your shirt or similar. Just be careful not to crush the wee critter while it hides within your PM.
What about basing what is and isn't warded against by this kind of Corpus ward along the lines of the "what a Parma would cover if you have/had one" and/or "would it teleport with you as a part of T:Ind"?
Also, is there a parallel that can be drawn here to how Wielding the Invisible Sling vs. the Vilano version differ from each other?
As I see it, there are two basic ways to think about a ward. One is to think of it a kind of invisible wall that is impermeable to certain kinds of things. This is a "technology" image of a ward. The other way is to think of the ward as something that magically protects against a certain kind of thing (and its actions). More of a "magical" image of a ward.
I think that the later is more consistent with the RAW, and feels more like "magic". I admit that this interpretation seems harder to adjudicate in some circumstances. However, in-play, it hasn't really posed any problems for me. In play, it is actually pretty easy --- "if someone's warded against you (with sufficient penetration, etc), you can't affect them (unless you do something exceptionally cunning)".
As far as I can tell, Richard Love's interpretation is mostly correct (which is why I dislike RAW personnal wards and House Rule them instead).
IIRC, there are at least 2 exemples of such Personnal Wards against Humans. One is a verditius from an antagonist covenant (the one with Drums as casting tools), I can't remember from which book. He uses it before going into Battle
The other is in Magi of Hermes. One maga (a tytalus) has a twin sister, and both have an item enchanted with such a Ward. However, I may be wrong, but I believe that is doesn't work against missile weapons, which, while it contradicts the RAW on Wards, make things a lot simpler.
I was under the impression that the whole "ranged weapon" thing was answered by Aristotillean physics: it's the air that moves the thrown weapon, not the person. As such, you need to ward against the missile weapon type - although I suppose an auram ward would work, as well.
Appears to be based on the below-mentioned Repulse the Unwated Attention from MoH. Tales of Power, p. 119.
Repulse the Unwanted Attention, MoH, p. 95. Expicitly does not block thrown weapons or missiles.
And as always, I'd urge caution before using MoH as an argument for anything.
I disagree with the assesment that the second version is more 'magical'.
And this I disagree with rather strongly, on several levels.
Corpus is not the 'Art of Humans' the ways the ie Animal is the 'Art of Animals'. It is specifically the Art of the Human Body. And while my body powers my swordblows, when I hit you with my sword, I do not hit you with my body. Please remember that humans are already divided into 2 Arts - Corpus and Mentem. And I don't really see people suggesting a ReMe ward protecting against swords, though it would make at least as much sense, since my sword is driven by my Will as much as by my body. To me, this would feel much more magical.
On a game design level, I also deeply dislike the idea, because it forces every magus to focus on Corpus (and already excellent Art), and probably Rego (another very nice Art), because being Immune to Humans is quite simply too useful. Every magus with any interest in physical conflict - and most who has none - would want to be able to cover themselves in this ReCo Ward and be casually immune to 90% of effects from humanoids.
Magus wants to blast you? ReCo ward (except the power's plausibly external to him, but still manipulated by him).
Holy man wants to blast you? ReCo ward, never mind that he's channeling the Power of God, certainly externally sourced.
This is a 'one cure for all ills' or at least very close, which is exactly what the penetration rules of 5th edition are designed to counteract.