Back to the original question. What if those hedgies are witches with familiars? Two for the price of one. :mrgreen:
Also back to the original question, there is a statement that familiars can be lab assistants. We have now established that not having The Gift themselves does not prohibit them from being an assistant in general. The statement about familiars in the lab is general, not specific to a given magus. It's not written "your familiar can be a lab assistant for you" or any such way. So I would say they can be lab assistants for others.
At the same time, I would agree that you need to be very careful. Usually we only have familiars as lab assistants to others when the master also is, such as for a longevity ritual. We have had exceptions to that, but only when the magi are very close. We looked at it as not as bad as being an assistant yourself for two reasons. One, you can still do lab work yourself, and your familiar you lent out may not have helped you this season. Two, in Hermetic law a Familiar is below a Hermetic Magus, so saying your Familiar is below another Hermetic Magus does not put you yourself below that magus. You still won't earn a good reputation that way, but its consequences are lower. Additionally, it can let you keep an eye on things you might be interested in without needing to interfere with your own work.
Chris
I had some discusson with myself before deciding to post this, as I deeply feel it to be irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
- The text does not state eg. "EXAMPLE: familiars may assist in lab" nor "EXCEPTION: familiars may assist in lab". Thus it it not formally explicit.
- I'm not arguing that it is not explicit that these types of characters may assist in lab - it is - but that they are not explicitly stated to be exceptions.
- I find that the bit on p. 103 + failed apprentice virtue can be read as either examples or exceptions, depending on which viewpoint I choose to favour.
I try to read it with each point of view in mind, because I have learned from painful experience that desire for a specific result (eg. a specific understanding of a certain text) influences the result (same example, how I understand the text).
I'm not stating that you are wrong - I can see how the text can mean exactly what you're saying it means.
I'm not stating that you're right either, though in the last page or so, you appear to be closer to what I read than you have in earlier pages, and I'm sure you will argue you have not moved at all, meaning that we have appearantly been arguing semantics.
If anything, I argue that the text is insufficiently clear (almost all text based on words are - this is why math is beautiful. Right up until you dive into it's murky depths of applications).
Ths part was not aimed at you specifically. I seem to recall it having been brought up, so I wanted to take this out of the argument in hopes of saving us a few extra pages. I seem to have failed. I thank you for reminding me of the Becomming - it's been too long since I last read up on the Merinita Mysteries.
It was indeed aimed at
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the reference.
You are formally and semantically correct, ofcourse, in how conditional statements do not mply their inverse ("=>" as opposed to "<=>").
However:
The original statement was incorrect for being imprecise. But So was the answer. Not wrong, but simply less than good because it leads to wasteful discussions, while the statement "Exceptions exist" would have been perfect for use.
Clearly you do not have to have the Gift to be on this list.
Indeed your phrasing is superior to that found in the core rulebook.
... and once again, I have posted a dreaded wall of text to no end, haven't I?
Only if you believe a familiar can help another mage. There is only one "primary researcher" in the laboratory; leadership does not form layers beneath that lead mage.
Ah, the joys of cross-posting. No, I didn't notice that. It seems both are listed at :30 after the hour, so I edited as you were typing/posting your very short response. My apologies for the false accusation. No foul, no worries.
Ah, so you refuse to accept the premise of the argument at all. (Rhetorically very sound and solid tactic, Respect!) 
So, while I have no problem with either interpretation, in order to support my default position I must find some starting point that is less open to interpretation, lest we deconstruct the rules into utter meaninglessness... hrmmm... maybe easier said than done...
Let's start with your (apparently) valid objection...
You suggest that each "example" within the rules carries the same weight. I will suggest that is not true.
The topic is introduced under "Help in the Laboratory" (p 103). It is there that we find the phrase "Anyone who has The Gift... may help you... (& etc.)" I propose that, as the central section on these sub-rules, this does, in fact, define a starting point - the starting point.
Later in that same section, it mentions Familiars (in the context of Leadership) but never states whether Familiar's have The Gift or MT or no - and it doesn't have to. Familiars are explained in their own section. These two sections thus have this one intersection within the application of the rules, but the fact that Familiars can help in the lab is less significant to this discussion than the first definition we see under "Help in the Lab" - as phrased above. Tho' they are both "rules", they do not, in fact, carry equal weight outside their relevant sections.
Likewise, we have, in a different section, a comment about Failed Apprentices. That is found under Virtues (p 42), and altho' it precedes the above in pagination, it does not precede the core definition in significance. Quite the contrary, the clear meaning is to define Apprentices with regard to that general rule, that they are included. That rule is far more tied to the "Character Generation" area of the rules than the "How magic works" section. So, again, they do not carry equal weight - to premise the definition of "those who can help in the library" on a tiny section under Virtues called "Failed Apprentices" rather than the general rule under the primary "Help in the Library" section is an approach that is flawed at face value.
Since you enjoy analogies, I'll try to come up with some apt ones...
Altho' some spells incorporate exceptions to the basic Guidelines, this does not mean that the Guidelines and the exceptions carry equal weight. We start w/ the guidelines, and some spells take exception to that, not the other way around.
Or, perhaps better, we can look at the Aging rules, and then at Strong Faerie Blood. A discussion of Aging should not start with the virtue and then compare the general rule to that.
Now, neither of these analogies are perfect since neither "central" rule-section uses the term "may" *, but the premise is the same - you start with the central section, and then move forward from there, not work backward from exceptions. And before you reject that designation ("exception"), I further propose that part of the definition of an exception to a rule is that the exception is found outside the central rule - which, for Lab Help, is found in the section on "Help in the Lab".
(* For instance, we do not find, on page 168 - "Characters may begin aging... after they turn 35", even tho' this is a true statement. And this does not contradict the SFB Virtue, despite being the central rule.)
Nevertheless, I think both of those are a good, relatively solid analogies* for the diff between a central rule and an exception to that rule, and how they work together in that hierarchy without confusion, contradiction or inviting interpretation.
(* but I also expect you to (try to) poke holes in them). 8)
Um, you may have established it to your satisfaction, nothing more...
Hrmmm... by a strict reading of this section (The Bound Familiar, p. 105), I would have to agree. But a more liberal reading might yield that the same phrase "taken in context" of the overall section means something else. The issue of whether the authors felt the need to pad every section with incontrovertible legalistic boilerplate may or may not be taken into consideration here.
I did use it, or something akin. You are quoting an unintentional misquote caused by a crosspost. See orig, see timestamps.
(Callen! See what you started! 
)
The phrasing is less subject to interpretation. Whether or not that is "superior" is (as amply demonstrated by the previous 2 1/2 pages) open for debate.
Tell you what. Let's do it a different, easier, way. Since you are not satisfied, find something that says "they can learn Magic Theory and serve as laboratory assistants" is incorrect except when a Familiar has The Gift. Similarly, find a reason Failed Apprentices and Becoming faeries cannot serve as assistants.
Chris
And now you want me to disprove a negative, and that is "easier"? Sure is easier for you!
Hey, I said it before, I'll say it again - it's not that you're wrong, just there is no, single "right" position. The whole issue is open to more than a little interpretation.
I'm not sure on that. (I'm remembering stuff from a book on linguistics and judges I read years ago, so salt grains and all) If I remember correctly statements where "not" follows some of the verbs like can or may can be reversed in meaning under certain circumstances. It has to do with Englishes transition from an agreement grammer to the word order hell it is now. It's almost rare for "can", but can creep into the common usage for "may".
I'll demonstrate what I mean by reversible with some synonyms. It all depends on which verb not attaches itself to.
Can generally implies ability and is roughly synonymous with Is able to So the normal way to read can not (action) is Is not able to (action).
However where the ability to do the action is assumed to be required can not (verb) is often reversed so the not modifying the b[/b]. Is able to not(action)
(Note this sentence does not say a camel is not able to drink just that they don't have to)
Now May while close in meaning to Can generally implies permission so I will use is allowed to for the synonymous phrase.
So the possible meanings of May not (verb) are is not allowed to (verb) or is allowed to not (verb) In this the reverse crops up in situations where some thing is generally requires an action but in this case some circumstance allows something to avoid that action.
(Quakers could and did submit to the draft they just had the option not to)
Now the reversed usage of Can followed by Not is very rare but situations where May Not gets reversed do crop up more often. Leaving some linguists to theorize that's why the contraction for "may not" stays out of the common usage.
Well if one expects that all apprentices would be required to have be gifted and that the Failed Apprentice Virtue allows an exception because their gift might have been completely destroyed then the sentence reads just fine as.
As I said before that is how I read it for quite awhile before I saw it could mean something else.
This is turning really silly. Nowhere does it say that mushrooms cannot be my lab assistants either. This is one of those threads that makes new players leave Ars Magica in the shelf and never come back to the forum. The fact is that the Ars rules are totally inconsistent with themselves in issues like those. And FYI Altea has been "an ungifted lab assistant" since SECOND edition, when stuff like reason auras were common.
Out of the thread.
Xavi
Problem is that you put the emphasis questionably. Try reading it with emphasis on "anyone".
Icky complex... :mrgreen:
Writing a rule as an equation... shudder
Leadership 10 to get 4 assistants? phew I dont think its THAT easy to get a hold of assistants.
I just run it as, can always have 1(+Leadership) assistants+ magi´s Familiar. Simplicity FTW.
Reason aura was 3rd unless im totally off. And since i have 2nd edition, i dont think so.
The game is very freeform but still has plenty of rules, that combination leads to oddities. Just accept it.
Yay,
I was thinking that my post was invisible...
Now, about Althea argument and question ("The Broken Covenant of Calebais", p. 68). She is a (deceased) unGifted Lab Assistant, thats clear in the text, so:
... Being old ("since 2nd ed") does mean:
1 - unGifted lab assistants are ok and (probably) so does a familiar from other magus;
2 - old stuff are odd even if kept in reprints and nothing can be concluded;
3 - None of the above statements (please justify to increase my understanding).
<wipes away a single tear, thinking fondly of Reason Regio in libraries...>
Since you're changing the subject (while still staying close to topic), I'll respond.
#3.
Ungifted were ok in prev editions, but unless you have legacy characters from ooooold sagas, they magically changed with a wave of the hand long ago, along with lab totals and Disputatio and so much more that was all tied together and "balanced" back then.
Nothing can be concluded if you mix editions, just as if you tried to put the pieces of a 1969 and 2009 Mustang together, or wrote some code using DOS and Windows XP - despite some similarities in lineage and appearance, they just don't (necessarily) fit, nor should anyone expect them to. (And The Wise would be surprised if they did!)
Short answer: 2
Long answer... a verson of 3 that is really 2 if you get past all the filler words like "potentially" "reasonably" "possibly" "perhaps" "if" and "special case(s)" etc.
OK, sorry, thanks for your time... I think.
BTW those who put pieces of 1969 and 2009 mustang together was the line editor, since I was quoting 5th ed version of "The Broken Covenant of...", but who cares.
BTW Reason is 3ed and the first version of TBCoC is 2nd, but I feel like wasting my time saying that... lol.
We know - but that's why new products have so many play testers. Even David s but one mortal man, he'll make mistakes and overlook stuff, so he out sources.
I' havend seen all the answers but... the Bond beetwen Magi and Familiar makes the Familiar related to the Magi's Gift, taht means that "He/She/It"'s gifted or that the magi can use better their Gift with a Familiar, that means that for me only you canuse your Familiar, but anyother cabn be teached or trained on Magic theory by any Familiar.
My opinion.
Previously quoted section strongly suggests otherwise:
I don't have the text in front of me, but my memory of Althea in BCoC is that she was the sort of assistant who sweeps and organizes the lab, brings ingredients to the magus, stirs mixtures, builds and maintains the fire, etc. A lab feature, basically. Not the sort of assistant who can Help In The Lab and add her Int + MT to all lab totals.
A servant in Covenants terms?
The problem is that forum users like to throw napalm into the fire :mrgreen: Althea is explitly said to be a "lab assistant" and also to have no magic at all herself. It is obvious that she is basically a housemaid and servant, but it is said to be something that by the RAW she cannot be if she is ungifted and has no MT. Simple.
Cheers,
Xavi