Obviously, it's not hard to figure out how to protect yourself against, for example, swords or fire or the like; just use Rego (appropriate Form) and something will probably look right. But what about things that endanger you without being physical, dangerous things? Like, could you invent a spell (or make an item) to protect yourself against PeCo spells that outright kill you, or PeAq spells targeting the water in your body? Just as examples... Can you design spells to protect you against effects like those? (I'm not saying one spell to protect against all of them, just, can spells be designed specifically to block one or a few of those types of effects, or is Magic Resistance your only hope?)
Those kinds of threats are tricky precisely because they are direct application of magic.
The main protection you have against those kinds of attacks is they are high level spells, and as such the caster is probably going to be scraping for penetration. It's a GREAT reason not to go around declaring wizard's war on ancient Perdo specialists.
Beyond getting some at least semi-respectable magic resistance (Parma Magica of at least 3, preferably more) as well as decent forms, your other options against such things are:
mastering a similar spell for 'resistance' - this doubles your magic resistance, which means only a hyper-specialist is going to have a hope.
remembering that Hermetic magic is limited in that the caster must be able to detect the target.
you can use spontaneous magic to counter spells. it costs fatigue to do so, but you can whip up an emergency defence at the last second. Better to lose a point of fatigue than lose your life!
The thing you're always going to need to be aware of is that specialists in their field can potentially pull off some big casting totals. Assume a specialist can generate a casting total somewhere between 60 and 90 without spending vis, and plan accordingly. This is why if you're going to wizard's war someone senior to you, do it with friends or spend some time preparing first.
These kind of insta-kill spells aren't usually a staple of wizard's war unless the caster already has an arcane connection, simply because of the magnitude of the effect. You can achieve similar levels of 'i win' with much lower spell levels; a modified Call to Slumber is probably more dangerous than Kiss of Death.
EDIT: Oh, and...
You can always ward against the instigator of such an attack, be it a Ward Against Faeries to stop faerie aggressors, or a Ward Against Humans to stop hostile magi. Just remember the ward must penetrate, and wards against humans might introduce unexpected problems - like permanently trapping yourself within your own magic circle! That'd be embarrassing...
Note that there is now a canonical example of using Perdo Vim antimagic wards to prevent someone from casting an effect INTO a warded area (Impede the Impertinent Interloper, TME, pg. 109).
Thus, you may be able to use that spell as a general guideline for casting wards against other spells.
(Has this effect been discussed at all? I just found it last night, and am somewhat amazed that I can't find any mention of it on the forums.)
It's really just an application of the same guideline as Unravelling the Fabric of [Form].
Apparently, the author decided that 'teleportation magic' was as limiting/well-defined as a single form.
As a play-tester for it, I should have pointed out that it needed a double indentifier ("Hermetic teleportation magic") to be fully correct, but do you remember any other traditions with such magics?
I accept blame for it blocking non-Hermetic teleportation though, it shouldn't.
The only non-Hermetic magic system that utilises teleportation in the same sense that Hermetic does is pre-Hermetic Mercurian magic. Not sure if it is sufficiently distinct from Hermetic magic, though...
Everyone else seems to do insta-travel (or near-insta-travel) via regionnes or discorporation, so would gleefully ignore that spell effect anyway.
Hm. I was under the impression that Perdo Vim effects couldn't be done against momentary effects - that it required there be a coherent spell to cast against, rather than a forming spell, in order to successfully target a PeVi effect. (Hence why it didn't replace countermagic as just an altogether better solution.)
However, I also thought this restriction was clearly stated somewhere, and I'm not actually finding it. Does anyone know if my thought is RAW, or not?
EDIT - because if this is the case, then The Intangible Assassin chapter of HP is REALLY missing the "you can create a PeVi ward against Intangible Tunnel effects" comment.
IIRC the prohibition gainst use om momentary effects is specific for Winds of Mundane Silence - to prevent using it as a generic fast-cast counterspell - not a limit on the guideline per se. Unravelling the Fabric of [Form] does not have this restriction.
And I completely agree with Tellus in the 'double identifier'. Sadly this is not a universal understanding, and Philipus Niger in Guardians of the Forest is not designed correct. I know GotF is an old book and that the example spells in HoH:Soc in the Ex Misc chapter, Line of Pralix section may be newer than GotF (Noble's Parma). But the core rules PeVi guideline mentions the 'double identifier'
Why is Tellus accepting blame here? Why is Philipus not correct? Where is that core rule requiring a double identifier???
I see some examples that have double identifiers, but nothing requiring it. Then we have the stuff in Lineage of Pralix which doesn't use a double identifier and follows the same guideline. So it seems pretty clear that a double identifier is not needed. It can certainly be helpful to make sure a spell is specific enough, but helpful versus required are totally different things. And you can always get more specific if you want, too, but that doesn't mean you have to. For example, a spell to knock down Parma Magica only is far narrower than one to cancel Hermetic Vim effects. Is Parma Magica disallowed because of the single identifier, while the much broader Hermetic Vim is allowed? No, they are both allowed because there is no double identifier rule.
Correct, the spell Wind of Mundane Silence has this restriction. But the guideline the spell uses doesn't have this restriction at all, just as the guideline Unraveling the Fabric of [Form] does not have this restriction.
I'm (somewhat tounge-in-cheek) accepting blame here, because I didn't catch that while playtesting this TME and not even considering the possibility while playtesting Project..
We've been over that before, and I'm fairly certain the two of us have specifically debated it before.
Maybe search for a thread where I've used the expression 'double identifier'?
So no hard definition of specific type is given except the examples. Both examples have 'double identifiers' meaning they identify both a tradition (Hermetic vs Shamanic) and a functionality (Terram magic vs spirit control magic).
Philipus Niger's spells are an unfortunate case, defined before Hedge Magic came out and complicated things. I have contacted mr Chart about it a while back, but it has not been dealt with in the official errata - probably because mr. Chart at the time was busy arranging what should happened after he'd stepped down as Line Editor.
Correct. The examples are however about as hard information as we have on the definition of 'specific' in this case. I know you would have phrased it more precisely, and certainly so would I, but neither of us wrote that book.
Then what would be the point of giving those double identifying examples, and no counterexamples?
Again, Lineage of Pralix/HoH: S came out before Hedge Magic decided to have traditions using existing Supernatural Abilities, rather than building all traditions from the ground up (which I would have prefered), thus complicating matters. You could have a ¨specific' category defined as 'Tradition-less Shapeshifting'. Though I would hate it.
No. technically, that's Hermetic Parma Magica - but no-one else has it, so we omit that.
If you like. I've said my piece.
It's clearly stated that anyone with the Gift may learn the Parma Magica. So I have to disagree with this position, it's not Hermetic Parma Magica, if it were, then no one who wasn't initiated as a Hermetic Magus would be able to learn it. There is a reason why magi work very hard to keep it secret and falling into the hands of other Gifted traditions.
Waaaaaay ahead of you... But yeah, strangely, it didn't seem to interest anyone. I'm stumped.
Well, really one is a double and one a triple, right? So we have both a double identifier and a triple identifier being valid.
I also strongly disagree with your "except" for examples. Generally, examples can only make a hard definition if the examples include every possibility. This is why we call the "examples." Otherwise they cease to be examples and become a list of all sets within a set.
Incorrect tense: the examples were about as hard information as we had on the definition of 'specific' in this case. In the present tense, we have several more examples that are written into canon. They have not been removed via the errata even after a lot of time has passed, so they should all be valid. Thus an interpretation that does not leave all these examples within the guideline does not follow canon.
There is limited space. Two examples are presented. Your line of reasoning is exactly equivalent to the following:
I give two examples of animals: cats and eagles. You conclude fish are not animals because both of my examples are warm-blooded.