Questions about Boundaries and Ships

[Berengar]

Imagine, that boundary markers have been set when a medieval manor was established. Destroying these markers does not destroy the manor. It is just a defiant gesture of an aggressive neighbour. Abolishing the manor is done in court.

@Ovarwa

More to the point: If the boundary is defined by the boundary markers, then destroying the boundary markers destroys the Boundary spell.

Because all that is called boundary in the different contexts in ArM5 is somehow the same? So there is word magic in the description of ArM5 magic, which not even its authors must break after writing? And if they do, they better are disregarded?

Cheers

[RedeNife]

A lot of good points here but I am going to split the difference. My call would be that a standard aegis would not hold up, but it might be possible for the covenant members to adapt an aegis to work on a ship. My logic behind this is that I always saw the Aegis of the hearth to be bound in part to the aura in which it it cast partially because my first covenant leaned heavily on a +6 aura. but lets say you are in a port with a +3 aura and renew your aegis but only make the roll by 2, if you leave part of the power maintaining that spell is left behind.
Plus the need to fix the problem is a great story point.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@One Shot

Imagine, that boundary markers have been set when a medieval manor was established. Destroying these markers does not destroy the manor. It is just a defiant gesture of an aggressive neighbour. Abolishing the manor is done in court.

I find this irrelevant.

@Ovarwa

More to the point: If the boundary is defined by the boundary markers, then destroying the boundary markers destroys the Boundary spell.

Because all that is called boundary in the different contexts in ArM5 is somehow the same?

Not what I'm saying.

So there is word magic in the description of ArM5 magic, which not even its authors must break after writing?

Not what I'm saying either.

And if they do, they better are disregarded?

I am always a great fan and proponent of engaging with game rules and deciding which ones work for you and which do not.

I especially recommend this practice as game rules expand beyond the point where it is practical to use all of them in a single game, beyond the point where they are consistent, beyond the point where they can be fully playtested either alone or in combination. All of these are true of every large system with which I am familiar, including AM5.

Hence my recommendation: Ignore the text box.

This is not the first time I have found rules or spells in AM supplements to be well worth ignoring. This is not the first time someone else has found my take on things worth ignoring.

Speaking of which, I think we have both stated our opinions plainly; I hear nothing new in our conversation and I am saying nothing new. By all means, if you like the Boundary rules that I find strange, please use them and enjoy.

Anyway,

Ken

[Berengar]

@Ovarwa

This is not the first time I have found rules or spells in AM supplements to be well worth ignoring. This is not the first time someone else has found my take on things worth ignoring.

Speaking of which, I think we have both stated our opinions plainly; I hear nothing new in our conversation and I am saying nothing new. By all means, if you like the Boundary rules that I find strange, please use them and enjoy.

Fair enough,

Cheers

[The_Fixer]

@Ezechiel357

Now, is it easy to reinvent Aegis with a different target parameter, that's a different story - The aegis being known as not fully integrated into the Hermetic Theory and acknowledge as being of the few canonical Major Breakthrough.

(...)

My take is: changing the target parameter does not change the ritual aspect of the spell, so it leads to less complicated consequence than having Aegis becoming a non-ritual spell by changing both its duration and target. However, is Aegis can be downgraded to Structure, what does it prevent to be reduce to Personal, thus giving a Parma-like effect achievable through spell ?

No need for that.

Shameless plug:
Anti-Magic Zones? MR for everyone?

[silveroak]

Consider a kingdom. It has a boundry. In setting up defenses it may be bounded by walls, rivers, mountains, or oceans, all of which are boundary markers. If you destroy the walls, reroute the river, and level the mountains, the kingdom still exists. I don't know what you are planning to do with the ocean. On the other hand if you do all of the above and wipe out all inhabitants and reduce the palace to rubble, then the kingdom most certainly does not exist.