It is not an Animàl spell, no, but it is Hermetic Animàl magic, which is the much vaguer phrasing used in the canon spell. It seems that the spell has been written to be excessively vague, and consequently accidentally permissive.
I do agree that Hermetic Animàl spells is suitably broad for fabric-unravelling spells, but I do not think that that's what RAW says.
It follows from this that allowing dispelling by requisite does not have any implication for, say, Parma Magica specialities.
No, as the dispel is for dispelling Animal form spells. The requisites does not add into this. Otherwise specific kind of Hermetic magic is way too broad. The problem would cascade in Muto meta magic allowing meta magic spells to affect any spell with requisites. The main from matters for the specific kind of magic.
Where do you get that from? We know only, that the Perdo Vim Guideline (ArM5 p.160 box) is written for specific types of magic. One example is "Hermetic Terram magic" - and not "Terram Form spells".
From this difference starts the poll opening this thread.
Well, that's not quite accurate. We know more than that. The spell specifies it's "specific type" as
This spell will cancel the effects of any one spell of a specified Form
I'm not saying that guarantees it one way or the other. But we do certainly know "specific type" in this case is "of a specified Form." And later it shows this means a Hermetic Form.
That is a specific spell - which in itself doesn't override a clearly more general guideline.
Sure, but "specific Form" is a very practical definition of the guideline, from the example given.
Other ways of categorizing Hermetic magic into types could be verry messy and inconsistent. The types could be Shapeshifting (any spells changing something, from one Form to another, but not Muto spells within the same Form), Missile Spells (spells to conjure an element to hurl at someone, so Pilum of Fire but not Wielding the Invisible Sling, because this hurls an existing rock, and maybe Crystal Dart, because it is existing dirt which is changed, but probably not Earth's Carbuncle...).
No thanks, I'll take the categorizing of Forms, just like I imagine this guideline used on a spefific exotic tradition's magic uses the divisions into that tradition's equivalent to Forms. Like the specific Vitkar Runes.
And sure "Hermetic Terram magic" chould have been more clearly defined, it it meant to say "spells of the Hermetic Form of Terram". But that is the interpretation I've made, and it seems very reasonable give the example spell(s)
As I said above in this thread. It is a matter of taste.
I would suggest that the Hermetic Forms are not the only way to establish a "specific type of magic", even for Hermetic magic.
One could conceivably use the same guideline to invent a spell that would target Mutantum magic, or circular wards, or Hermetic Faerie magic.
All of these are specific types of magic, much like Parma Magica or Aegis of the Hearth (which have spells using the same guideline to dispel them).
Using those types might be unusual, of course, but could be quite interesting IMHO.
YMMV
To me if the Requisite is involved it literally does fall under the category of the Form, even if only partially. The component of the effect that is provided by the Requisite falls into the category, otherwise there would be no involvement of that Form in designing or using the effect. Requisites blur the lines of a clean delineation between magic of different Forms, and deciding whether they matter or not appears contentious. My perception is one side prefers a cleaner and firmer delineation and the other perceives the Requisites to mean that such a firm separation simply doesn't exist for those effects.
In general I think designs like those offer pros and cons. They are thematic and offer the additional utility of affecting non-Hermetic magic. But when dealing with purely Hermetic magic you may wish you had Form dispels for their breadth at times.
I'm in the opposite camp. I don't find it at all reasonable that if I transform myself into an eagle, taking my items with me, that you can dispel this with just about any version of Unraveling the Fabric of (Form).
Meanwhile, would you let me invent a MuCo(An), and MuMe(An) and a MuAn(Au) in the same season? How about MuCo(An), MuAn(Au), and MuCo(Au) all in the same season?
This is where it really reduces the strain on the mind to be strict about the primary arts, and let requisites modify the lab total and nothing else.
That does not necessarily imply that there could not be a spell to dispell any spell remotely related to Animàl. That is a different question. However, the only thing the two of us disagree on is what RAW actually says. We agree on what it should have said.
I don't think "just about any" is accurate or a fair representation of the opposite position. Out of the canon examples that we have, presuming you are talking about transforming with a Hermetic effect, then I'd think there are three working dispels. (Corpus, Animal, and Shapeshifting Magic) Okay, four, if you take your items with you (Terram). That is hardly a preponderance of the available options for PeVi designs. A small minority/sub-set by far.
To me I just don't see a reason to consider the Requisite an exception to the category of Hermetic (Form) Magic as described. Now an argument could be made to revise those definitions to one more amenable to a narrower category definition but that is a distinct issue I'd think.
If, for concerns of broader playability, the consensus (and I'm not entirely sure there is such a consensus, but for sake argument if there were one) is that it "should" be restricted to the primary Form then I'd recommend an errata to redefine the PeVi categories appropriately. But that should be done carefully I think with an eye to what that also means when we look at broader/different categories such as magical themes instead of a formal technical division/category like a Form.
I think part of the issue here perhaps is that some people are viewing it as said technical category/division, and others as a thematic category?
Why would I do that? And why would it be a relevant factor to the broader discussion?
What about making a the target to dispel a spell via its requisites x(maybe 10?) levels higher that the target needed to dispel via the base Art? One wouldn't include casting requisites in this, just the ones listed in the spell parameters.
I had asked about a casting requisites. You had said that would qualify it. So if I cast a MuCo(An) spell and take along any items I have with me, that would almost always include Herbam and Terram. Commonly a character would bring some water with them on an excursion. So An, Aq, Co, He, Te at the very least. I've seen Vim used if you want to bring vis with you, which is common for magi. Imaginem and Mentem wouldn't show up often. Auram and Ignem might by magi, or if you switch to MuCo(Au) or similar you don't lose Animal due to clothing. So about 6 Arts, perhaps as many as 7, would probably be typical for a shapeshifting spell, right? Yes, "just about any" was an exaggeration, but I think leaving out things like Herbam and Aquam when you consider your items is pretty extreme favoritism the other way. I can't see fewer than 5, so at least half, up to 70% or so.
If a requisite qualifies something as a spell of that Form, would it work? Or what if if you just do MuCo and MuCo(An), would that be disallowed because one is also Animal?
It also does mean Divine equivalent of a specific form. During writing of the guideline the specific cases of non-Hermetic magic was not set, thus it could not be given as an example.