I think this will be me not using clear language. When I am talking of wards here I am talking of CIRCLE wards. IMS circle wards give MR, personal wards act as a bonus to soak or natural resistance rolls. So, to get 100% efficiency vs something, you need to ward them outr with a fixed circle spell. No transportable "push out" individual/group wards for us 
Hence the difference. if you allow transportable wards, yes, it causes the problem you are mentioning.
Cheers,
Xavi
In fact, you create a fire (creo ignem 
) at voice range.
The fact that it appears as a pilum of flame flying from your hand is just a special effect: You could just as easily have a spell that engulf the victim in a column of fire. Both would be the exact same level.
IMHO, if we do that, we could even have different base level for wards, such as base 10 for magical creatures and faeries, base 15 for demons and base 20 for divine creatures. Or any other combination.
And then you have to record the exact penetration for the spell equally. Much nmore number keeping that disregarding penetration in most sagas, where you have at most 2 versions of a certain ward (levels). Besides, I prefer that a level 20 ward wards against might 20 or less creatures, not that a ward wards more or less depending on how well I roll each time....
That would be like a POF doing more or less damage depending on my casting roll. it is a FORMULAIC spell instead of a spont for something, methinks.... Formulaic are stable spells, not random rolling ones. Or they should IMO
Xavi
Well Xavi, The rolling has more to do with the stress of the casting situation than the effect strength of the spell being cast. Given that, a magus is not so much increasing or decreasing the formulated damage potential of the spell, but rather how effectively the spell can act against magical resistance itself.
Thus the better the roll the more effectively the magus is able to focus himself on the casting formula in order to overcome his adversary's resistance.
Where mundanes are concerned this is a moot point as a POF, for example, will always do the same amount of damage so long as he does not totally botch, since the target has no resistance to overcome.
Perhaps the best reasoned argument in this whole thread.
What I am questioning is that formulaic spells are more or less stable in their effects. Wards would not, under this system. They would depend solely on penetration in practical terms, being the UNIQUE spells that do that. Quite a few spells need to penetrate to be effective, but they are not based so much on penetration as the wards would be.
In other words, I dislike this solution 100%. I find it way LESS elegant than the current RAW situation of wards having to penetrate. It does not reduce the need to keep an excel format fuill of ward totals and allows my recently gauntleted magus to trap the virgin mary in a ward if I roll well.... and at the same time being raped by a lowly level 1 imp if I roll badly.
Good for sponts, bad for formulaics.
Xavi
I'm not sure I follow you - which system do you refer to? The Wards don't need to penetrate one, the Wards do but should have a fixed guideline, the Wards do need to penetrate and be might specific as well?
From both the need-to-penetrate camps, all spells rely on penetration. Your formulaic spell for teleporting the target to Novgorod is easy and reliable to cast because it is formulaic, and you can always get a more powerful effect than you would from a spont. If it fails to penetrate, however, the target doesn't visit Moscow any time soon. Wards, likewise. If they don't penetrate than then the creature brushes through them, too magic resistant to be held back by the puny magic. In all spells, they penetrate or they don't, and your ability to affect more powerful targets depends on how well you roll and (in some cases) your penetration score and arcane connections.
Besides, as is you need to record either one or two values for every ward anyway - the level and the penetration (if used). The two suggested variations to the RAW mean you need only one value -either the level or the penetration. The variation introduced into ward penetration by the die is the same as for your handy Pilum of Fire. Sometimes you fry Mary's halo, and sometimes the Might 1 imp calmly steps into reach and guts you with his claws.
My god that cracked me up! Not only is it hillarious but it is just so darn typical for confusions of IC and OOC mixups - but it's also very much about the meta of roleplaying!
Sounds fair. As far as distinguising between the two types, I think it is a more than fair trade to have two different spells based on intent rather than ad-infinitem varients of a general level sepll
Not sure I follow you here. I prefer the old way too, and lacking anything official (until they decide to put a page on "Ward Options" in the new Wizard's Grimoire, hinthint*), it is easiest to simply handwave and say wards don't need penetration. However, Xavi, you surly can't seriously believe that a compromise method is worse, do you? Yes, they both require more book keeping than the no-pen method, but it does make warding a more viable option than the current RAW. You gotta meet people half way man . All it means is that you gotta roll ten higher than you used to, but you don't need to learn an ever increasing general level of spell.
I still like the classic way better, and I'd like to ply a few games in Xavi's saga to try out his style. But as for the system as a whole, a flat Base Level is probably the best solution.
Flat base level? So you will only ever need the apprenticeship ward your pater taught you one season against all demons imaginable? No thanks, not IMC.
An option that occurred to me, untested: Use Xavi's circle parma option, add guidelines for "strengthening parma to ward against more things" spells, preferably with achilles heels (ward vs all plants except mistletoe...), drop all other ward spells... also showcases parma as The Big Discovery.
Will need to add spells for Sealing The Great Evil Away Forever, I suppose. If you want that to be an option in the campaign.
This might not work for everyone, but the way we do it is to require Penetration and set the base level of the ward off of the maximum Might of the affected creature.
The base is zero and for every ten levels of Might affected you add +1 to the magnitude of the spell.
Therefore to ward a
Might 10 creature is base 1
Might 20 creature is base 2
Might 30 creature is base 3
Might 40 creature is base 4
Might 50 creature is base 5
Might 60 creature is base 10
Might 70 creature is base 15
etc.
I'll toss this out, apologizing if it's a bit of a tangent.
The very concept of a ward based on "circle" duration is terrifying.
A circle only lasts until it's "broken" - that can be as simple as a leaf falling across the defined circle, or a bit of dirt scuffed across it. And while it's not traditional for a warded creature to be able to directly achieve such (that is, they can't just kick some dirt across the circle and bypass it), any other creature could, or any accidental occurrence. A high wind in the area, bad weather in general, any of a thousand things could go wrong.
Better than nothing, certainly, but hardly something that should be relied on long-term.
(And IMS I don't believe in "inscribed iron circles" or whatever being more resilient - the "breaking" is conceptual, not actual, and so works just as easily. A string laid across a steel circle breaks it just the same as across one drawn in chalk, and a careless elbow or errant moth across a "light circle" ends that all too easily.)
Only if it penetrates. It is a compromise between the two camps. I prefer multiple no-pen wards, thuis is me meeting the opposition half way.
Brilliant! I was thinking of something like this earlier today when contemplating Xavi's objections. I was thinking base +1 for every five points of might though. It helps put wards back in proper proportion, but still, it doesn't adress Xavi's concern about needing to keep track of the scores of dozens & hundreds of circles.
Page 11. NOT my fault! 
At the risk of asking a silly question, have you ever needed a new Pilum of Fire since the apprentice level one your pater taught you?
We've played with the base level over the years, it really depends on how powerful you think wards should be. If you use +1/5 levels, warding a 40 Might creature is base 20 spell, which still has to penetrate. And that's no small feat. We like wards to be a little more magus friendly.
To address Xavi's concern, I don't see how any system for wards is going to prevent you from recording their level, Penetration or both. If you have to record one number, it's not that much effort to record the other too. Any long lasting spell effects force the troupe to record their levels. It's just the nature of the game.
I'm a jerk storyguide and make the players record their spell levels and Penetration scores. If they don't have them recorded, the spells fade away when most convenient for the story, i.e. when most convenient for me to make life uncomfortable for them.
Level 20, which then requires a CT of 40 to ward might 40 is exactly the equalibrium I seek. But I also see that this scale would go out of whack at higher scores (which was one of my concerns)
True, instead of recording Ward Strength as Level, it would be recorded as Penetration. Still, I think he dislikes the sliding variability of my version. You actually have to make a record instead of simply refering to your character sheet to find what level ward you know (as in classic style warding).
So where I am at right now is a choice of one of three solutions (because my ideas do develop and grow from debate)...
Now, I know 2 & 3 have more bookkeeping than some would like, but no more than the current rules and the result still is a more efficient proportionally balanced ward.
Now, I've only been playing Ars Magica for a month now... I'm a new SG, and I've been asking lots of little questions in my own thread.
But, your all wrong.
Sorry, I just wanted to grab attention, let me explain. I think everyone is barking up the wrong tree with this, now 11 page, ward 'discussion'.
It struck me, in my first reading, that creatures Might Score is used for:
This discussion is about wards. Perhaps it should instead be on the fact that trying to hold four concepts in one number is bound to be problematic.
You'll notice on p184 that Might Creatures can have a penetration bonus, sort of like the penetration ability.
I propose the following idea, that needs no new rules. Let Might Creatures have an equivalent of the Parma Ability.
I'll start with the 'Wards need to Penetrate camp'. So Creatures will be:
Realm Might X (form for ward)
Penetration Y
Realm Resistance -Z (ward form)
Want to ward against this, the ward must be of level X, but the penetration require is only X-Z if it is of the right form.
Or, for the 'non-penetrating camp'.
Realm Might X (form for ward)
Penetration Y
Realm Resistance Z (except ward form)
So, to ward against the creature requires a level X spell in the specific form or X+Z in other forms.
You can make it even funkier:
Squirrel Maiden
Magic Might 5 (Animal)
Penetration +10
Realm Resistance -5 An, +3 He (summer), -3 He (winter)
Powers ....
Summary:
a) your players need never know, you're not changing any rules
b) it adds just one extra line to a creatures sheet
c) you can make it more detailed if you want
d) you can extend this idea to add extra magic resistance exactly like parma to a creature.
So yeah, I think the pen / non-pen debate is interesting... but you've got to remember what you're arguing about - creatures with Might and how hard/easy it is to do things all based off one number.
["Just one little line. It's wafer thin... just a little one."]
Hmmm... talking about splitting factors up.
How about setting a fixed (or fractional Might or ...) base level for wards (and have them need to penetrate), as some people suggest, but let magi deliberately pick a higher level.
Why? Because the base level would only be a physical ward, with the warded creature similarly needing to penetrate the spell to use its powers across the ward (as MR).
So a Level 15, Penetration 25 ward (Casting Total 40) would provide a physical barrier against creatures of Might 24 and below and stop powers with penetration of 15 and below (i.e. for a Might 20 creature, those costing 5 Might Points and above).
That way you can have a demon trapped in a ward by a mighty magus who used a sucky ward, who would still be able to use the weakest (hence better-penetrating) powers to slowly corrupt nearby people.
Downside is that you get the worst of both worlds in terms of bookkeping.
About bookeeping (and sorry if I just say evidences here):
If you use an option like John post's, your ward will protect against, for exemple, Might 20 creatures at most.
Thus, you only need to keep track of penetration if it is lower than 20: Even a penetration of 40 brings you nothing.
So, at most, you'd have things like "Ward against Might 18 demons", if your penetration was 18.
This is not much different from having to keep track of all those levl 10, 15, 20... wards.