That's right, you're affecting the form, but you'll note that the spell doesn't come with an option to have the warded creature glow with an intensity that is related to its might magnitude.
Hmm ... noted. And...?
That's not the point being discussed.
@RafaelB was claiming that a spell, to be restricted to a set of targets characterized by something pertaining to a different Form (a Perdo Vim spell that only affects demons associated with Terram), needs as requisites Intellego + that other Form (Terram in this case).
I was pointing out that by that reasoning, a Rego Terram spell that only affects Terram creatures who happen to be Faeries should have Intellego + Vim as requisites, but it does not. Clearer now?
You are talking about a specific guideline, that states clearly a need to restrict the Realm, to achieve a specific kind of effect (a ward). This effect just means that there is some kind of "terram-ness" in a faerie that a ward is capable of blocking. There is no active identification, it's just a property of the ward, in the same way that a CrIg spell doesn't need to identify if the target is flammable before causing damage. Fire just burns, it's one of it's properties.
Back to the original question: can you create effects restricted to certain categories of targets? I understand that yes, you can, as long as the restriction is still within the form for the effect. If the restriction pertains to another form, this is akin to conflating a TeFo1 spell (primary effect) with a InFo2 spell (identify restriction), and I usually wouldn't even allow it (in the same way I wouldn't allow a Cr(Mu)Ig(CoTe) spell that petrifies someone after hitting it with a Pilum of Fire.
About the specific example of a Gifted person, a TeCo effect that targets only the Gifted assumes that the Gift leaves some kind of permanent imprint on the body (so that all bodies with the Gift share a common property). There is nothing, AFAIK, that implies this to be true, and it surely isn't true on my games.
You can assume it is. But note that this also means that you can create wards specifically targeted to Gifted people with ReCo, create PeCo spells that hurt only Gifted people, and you should be capable of telling if someone has the Gift with an InCo spell. You decide if this is a bug or a feature. I'll just point out that none of these effects are canon (you can be sure that the guidelines would say so if there was a mean to identify Gifted people with InCo).
3 Likes
Yes, and it's a wrong analogy since you can detect Terram might with InTe. There's nothing under Corpus that might affect/detect the Gift, however.
I think you are looking it from the wrong direction, It's not a ReVi spell. It's a ReTe spell. It affects Terram targets, like all Terram spells. But not just any Terram target, only a subset. And the subset is not defined by some Terram property. The spell does not single out targets made of stone, or gold. It singles out creatures with Faerie Might, clearly something that pertains to the Form of Vim. Just like the Gift does.
A Rego Terram spell can single out (iwithout requisites) Terram creatures with Faerie Might.
So you can't argue that a Rego Corpus spell could not single out (without requisites) Corpus creatures with the Gift.
Please note that I am not claiming that I like it. In fact, the very reason I started this thread is because (as I wrote in my first post) I dislike it immensely.
I am just saying that there is absolutely no basis in the rules for the claim that to target only a subset of a Form characterized by something pertaining to another Form, you need Intellego + that other Form as requisites. That's just something that was made up on the spot. It's a very reasonable house rule but it simply goes against the RAW, in the sense that the core book sports multiple counterexamples.
It effects only a subset of creatures with Faerie Might, specifically those with the Terram Form. All (non-Vim) Wards only affect Might that matches its Realm and Form specification. So a Faerie Ignem ward only works against Faeries who have the Ignem Form, but Faeries from any of the other nine Forms are totally unaffected by it.
This is not a good example since it is targeted at the Form Might (which must match the Form used in the spell/effect) rather than Might in general (which can only be blocked by Vim).
See The Tessa and Damen Wards - TTA p. 97. You need an Intellego requisite to only ward against humans from a specific bloodline in that spell - because wards don't detect on their own. And the Gift is governed by Vim, so you would want Re(In)Co(Vi) to ward humans with the Gift.
By the same token, you could claim that a Ward Against the Gifted Person is possible with ReCo alone, because
it affects only a subset of creatures with The Gift, specifically those with the Corpus Form.
It's exactly your wording, except that I replaced Terram with Corpus, and Faerie Might with the Gift.
I suspect that what you are saying is the following.
There are ReCo spells (without requisites) that can only affect targets with Magic Might.
But there are no ReCo spells (without requisites) that can only affect targets with the Gift.
Ok, maybe that's true. But the issue is that both having Magic Might, and having the Gift, are properties related to Vim; in fact, InVi is probably the most "natural" way to detect either. So you cannot argue that to have a ReCo spell that only affects targets characterized by some Vim property, you need to stick into it Intellego and Vim requisites. That's simply, and very plainly, untrue as a general rule, since there are counterexamples in the core book. If I can't make you see that, there's very little I can add, and so I'll just drop out of the discussion.
I don't suppose you've read my last message, did you?
I certainly did, and I likewise suspect you did not read mine, in particular the sentence with the two words " general rule ". That's why I am saying this conversation no longer appears productive, and I am dropping out of it. Sometimes one just has to accept that what appears transparent to him, might be totally opaque to someone else.
Obviously I did not do a good job of explaining.
There is no such thing in AM as just Might or [Realm] Might. All of them are [Form] [Realm] Might. That is, all Might is associated with both a Realm and a Form.
While the Gift is associated with a Realm (specifically the Magic Realm), it is not associated a Form.
1 Like
No, there is no such thing as [Form][Realm]Might.
Creatures have [Realm]Might. Supernatural creatures are also typically associated with some Form, but their Might is just one of {Divine, Magic, Faerie, Infernal} Might.
Pull up one official being with Might anywhere in the entire AM system that does not have a Form. There is no typically about it.
1 Like
So remove the word "typically". It changes nothing.
There is still no such thing as a [Form]Might.
"Mystical creatures have one of Divine
Might, Infernal Might, Magic Might, and
Faerie Might, depending on the realm to which
they are affiliated." Core p191
"(Realm) Might: The creature’s Might
Score. For mundane creatures, this line is omit-
ted. The Form with which the creature is asso-
ciated, for warding purposes, appears in brack-
ets after the Might Score." Core p191
The Form the creature is associated with is not part of its Might Score.
Oof, if we're at the step of arguing whether the form in parenthesis is part of the creature's Might, I'm out of the thread as well.
And yet one must be selected when you gain a Might score. If a Magus does something that gives them Might they are ether given a specific Form or must choose one. Something cannot have Might without a Form.
FWIW, I don't think the ReTe faerie ward is a good exemple.
As I see it:
At its core, it is a ward against might, but is limited by the form to target only Terram-based might.
But Hermetic Magic can't do blanket realm spells. it needs to tailor it to one realm.
Thus the need to have ReTe targeting Terram Faerie Might.
Having a generic ward against Terram Might could make sense, but it would point at a flaw in Magic Theory. If you have those in your saga, I'd say experimenting on such spells would be a great source of insight to have generic Vim spell that do not need to specify the realm.
Does this mean that Terram can detect Might? Well, yes, just like Ignem can destroy wood.
More seriously, I believe that forms can do some of the things of Vim, by targeting the Form aspect of the Might. In that, Vim acts as an Uber-form, that makes them all redundant.
But Vim isn't all about Might, anymore than Ignem is all about Fire. Can you cast a Muto Terram spell to change a Terram spell as it is being cast? YMMV.
Sorry, I feel like I'm wandering.
Oh, and I've been wanting to write on a related subject for a long time, but just can't.
I'd just say I don't think RAW is consistent on this, probably due to different people having different (maybe unconscious) assumptions. This extends within a TeFo, but also between techniques.
For example:
No one thinks twice about Beast of Outlandish Size being able to affect any animal.
Yet, would you allow a Creo Animal spell to just be able to create any suitable animal, as you wish on the spot? Like, take "Summoning the Creeping Death" (HoH: S 34, Bless the Grand Grimoire), and replace beetle by "any bird, reptile, fish or amphibian that you wish"?
Would you allow a Muto Corpus spell, similar in all points level to Eyes of the Cat, to be tailored on the spot to allow any animal ability?
I believe that these, and related matters, are not questioned or examined much, whereas they should be, as they can have quite an influence on a saga's shape and the power level of magi. But whatever.
1 Like
Yep. See LoH p.12ff The Four Aspects of Conciatta.
Indeed. See LoH p.27 The Tome of Binro with its casting tablet Ward Against Woodland Spirits working on all realms.
1 Like
Obligatory :
"Binro was right!"
Hmm. Consider the following spells:
- Hare to Hawk
- Boar to Bird
- Bird to Boar
- Beast to Bird (turns any land animal into a bird)
Are these all the same level? Are they even all allowed? Are there any logical restrictions on the second through fourth (like requiring an appropriate feather)?
1 Like