One really has to be precise about what constitutes "scrying". According to the Code, any use of magic to gain information constitutes "scrying" -- for example, if someone uses Intellego Mentem on your servant to find out what you like for dinner, while you are attending Tribunal a thousand miles away. Detecting this type of "indirect" scrying, that bypasses your Parma, is obviously very difficult; although if the magic used is withing your visual range, Sight of the Active Magics can generally spot it. I'm saying "generally", because if an invisible magus (or familiar) is stalking you, you won't see him unless you can penetrate his magic resistance -- and keep in mind that use of Sight of the Active Magics itself could be construed as scrying.
On the other hand, spotting direct scrying that targets you (like "The inexorable search") is much easier. Detecting the presence of any active magic is Base 5; to detect Technique and Form boosts this to level 15. You can cast on yourself, with Duration Momentary, and Target:Ind or Taste (in both cases the level stays 15) and learn what kind of magic is being used to scry on you there and then. Or you can boost the Duration to Sun, and the final level to 25, and remain aware of it for the whole day.
I find communication with you very difficult, because you seem to keep miscontruing what I say. More precisely, here you are quoting me out of context, distorting the meaning. I'm saying that Hermetic Magic is Aristotelian in that it does not affect or sense abstract concepts like love, lycanthropy, beauty; instead it affects or senses concrete items embodying those concepts.
Of course, a lot of Hermetic Magic seems to draw from the Realm of Forms, particularly for Creo Magics, so one could really see it as derived from Plato. That's what A&A passage says -- in some senses it can be seen derived from Aristotle's work, in others Platonic. So if I wanted to adopt the same tone I perceive you to be using, I could say that you are clearly wrong, and that you really should re-read A&A, because it never says that the troupe decides whether Hermetic Magic is Aristotelian or Platonic. It says that the troupe decides whether Bonisagus was inspired by Plato or by Aristotles or by both, because Hermetic Magic sports elements of both.
But I'm really tired of arguing, so I'll leave it at that.
To be utterly precise, it says (underscore mine): "Whether Bonisagus used Plato or Aristotle as a logical model for magic theory is entirely dependent upon your saga". And because Bonisagus did determine the logical model of the theory of Hermetic Magic, that doesn't really differ from "The troupe decides whether Hermetic Magic is Aristotelian or Platonic".
While most would probably debate the wisdom of getting in between two people arguing at cross purposes:
T: Sense means the sense in question is used as the medium for conveying the information.
So in the case of Invisible Eye, the sense of Touch works just fine because it is sensing the scrying magics that are touching the target. If the magus who casts it is standing in a room targeted by Prying Eyes then they are within the area directly affected by the magic - the magic is touching them (InVi, remember?), and as such they feel it.
As per the limitations of a sense: if the magic doesn't touch the caster of Invisible Eye, they won't detect anything. So it's not a foolproof anti-scrying spell, but it is handy for catching the more blatant scrying methods.
For example, if I cast Eyes from the Wizard Torn and put my eyeball in a jar on a shelf, then use it to spy on you... my eye is the target of the of the magic, not you. Pro: it won't be picked up by Invisible Eye Revealed. Con: it's not an invisible eye, and you could find it and squish it.
All of this is beside the original point, though, which is Invisible Eye has its own guidelines that seem at odds with the rest of the InVi guidelines. Still, that's easy enough to work around in a troupe. Personally I like the look of the spell, and would consider it an example of a partial-integration of the major breakthrough to integrate second sight's no-penetration sensing into Hermetic theory.
Kid Gloves, I totally agree with you. I just gave up on trying to expain this to One Shot, however. He seems convinced that the description of The Invisible Eye revealed should be taken to mean that you are aware of any means used to scry on you, whether direct or indirect.
The question is whether the Invisible Eye can do anything that the other guidelines can't do, albeit at a different level. I contend it's not the case -- meaning that the level of the Invisible Eye should just be re-adjusted.
The starting point is that they all have a position in space. This is necessary, or it would be meaningless to talk about range when dealing with them (save possibly for Personal and Arcane Connection). How could I cast a spell to dispel another at Touch range? How could I cast a Mentem spell at Eye range? In the case of a mind, it seems that it generally shares the same physical location of the body (there may be exceptions, e.g. spirit travel or Innermost Companion, but they're easy to gauge). In the case of a spell, it seems it starts out in contact with the caster, and then ends up being co-located with the targets. In the case of a regio, well, that's easy.
Once you have a position, you can think about species. It's true that these things generally do not emit species. But by using a magical sense, you can sense them as if they did. Thus, if you use a Target:Touch InVi spell to detect the border of a regio, you'll feel e.g. cold on your fingers when they brush the regio border. If you use a Target:Smell InMe to detect anger, you'll basically perceive all angry people as if they were e.g. foul-smelling (meaning you won't perceive much if you have a cold, or if they upwind etc.).
As we said, the mind appears to be co-located with the entire body. That's why you can cast a Touch Mentem spell by touching the target's foot, for example. So, by tasting any part of your body, including your mouth, you can Taste spells affecting your own mind.
It depends. You have to decide whether in your game a T:Part effect permeates the whole being, but only affects the Part, or whether it permeates only the Part. Would dispelling such an effect with a R:Touch spell require touching any portion of the victim's body, or the foot specifically? In the latter case (which is how I play), you'd have to get your foot into your mouth to taste the difference, meaning that Bitter Taste of Betrayal could be fooled, in some very specific ways, by some clever T:Part Corpus spells.
I fail to understand the question. I'd say it's "necessary" and "fits into the game system" because it logically follows from the rules, at least as far as I see it; though of course one can simply choose to abandon the rules "as written" in favour of house rules more to one's liking.
How would you play Bitter Taste of Betrayal instead?
With current rules [best taken from ArM5 p.113f, and HoH:S p.61ff], a magical sense effect works magic on the effect's recipients' perception, creating species (of the given four types) conveying the information of the sense. These magically created species originate very close to the sensory organs of their recipient. Indeed, if they did come from somewhere else in space, they could be perceived by others as well, couldn't they? And that would turn the spell from an InXx to a CrIm.
To correlate the information provided by magic sense and mundane sense, it is often very useful to have a magic sense's species overlay those perceived by the mundane sense, so that the effect you describe above occurs. But this is not necessary by the RAW - both ''Bitter Taste of Betrayal' and 'The Invisible Eye Revealed' demonstrate this.
Things get funny quickly when you ignore these basics:
Well, existing spells show that either your restrictive rules interpretation must be wrong, or these spells. Given the general weirdness and complications deriving from your rules interpretation, you are not expecting to be granted errata, or are you? Though this was, IIRC, the purpose of this thread.
I almost agree. It's not entirely clear if actual species are indeed created. But from the point of view of the sensor, it's as if the target emitted those species (which can be of five types, but that's a really minor nitpick).
I can't find any point were the rules state this for magical senses. In fact, since magical senses must penetrate the resistance of the sensed individual, it seems that the magic reaches all the way to the sensed individual.
I disagree with the extrapolation. The fact that you perceive anger as, say, the smell of onions doesn't mean that there's any onion smell involved, only that your sense of smell reacts as if to onion when an angry person is around. The way I see it is that the Target:Smell spell reaches out to all eligible targets, and if it penetrates their resistance, it travels back to your appropriate sensory organs along the path an appropriate species would travel -- and finally stimulates those sensory organs directly. So, no real species are created, although from the point of view of the caster it's as if the targets did, in fact, emit those species.
I'm not sure what you exactly mean with "overlay". I do contend that nothing in the description of Bitter Taste of Betrayal contradicts what I said. Admittedly, the description of the Invisible Eye Revealed suggests that either Invisible Eye Revealed is incorrect, or the Enchantment of the Scrying Pool behaves weirdly. But I do not see that as a major weakness of my interpretation since a) Enchantment of the Scrying Pool is not completely Hermetic, so it can behave weirdly and b) Invisible Eye revealed is a legacy spell that we have already established does not conform to the guidelines, so it may well be that its "translation" to Arm5 has multiple inconsistencies rather than just one (that's what the thread is about, after all).
First of all, in my opinion, you have failed to show that existing spells contradict my interpretation. I repeatedly asked you why, and you keep saying what I basically perceive as "look at the spells". You'll have to be more specific to convince me (at least).
Second, in this case weirdness and complications seem to be in the eye of the beholder. I see no weirdness or complications in my interpretation. In fact, it seems to me that your interpretation (from my admittedly incomplete grasp of it) causes "weirdness and complications", and contradicts the rules for magical senses in the corebook. These clearly state that to successfully use Target: on a target, it must be the case that, if the target emitted "normal" species, you'd be able to perceive them through your "normal" . Whereas, according to your interpretation (as far as I can tell) you could perceive through a Range:Touch InMe spell an angry person a mile away from you -- with the Range:Touch only affecting in which form the information you gain is perceived (as a tactile sensation rather than, say, a smell).
Third, I think it's pretty clear that the Invisible Eye revealed does not conform to the existing guidelines. Thus, either the spell or the guidelines must receive an errata, since they are mutually inconsistent.
I'd be hard pressed to believe some InTe could create species without an Imaginem requisite. OTOH, it seems all Intellego spells can affect the mind without a Mentem requisite.
I think Kid Gloves hit the nail right on. I am further of the opinion that you'd need a natural sensory organ to evade The Invisible Eye Revealed as I don't believe you can see anything without a eye to catch the species or a T:Vision to bypass that (The Miner's Keen Eye extra magnitude is an extreme example).
I am sorry to beat a 5-day dead horse, but I have trouble catching up with the forum.