The victim of a Creo Ignem spell isn't being "affected by" a magical effect -- they're being affected by a fire. The fire isn't doing anything magical to the victim; it's burning them: that's fire's natural property. If I conjure a big rock that drops on you, it crushing you is its natural property too, and you may be relieved that rock crushing does not cause Warping.
If the fire was turning them to stone that would be a magical effect, and cause Warping. But the magical effect of Creo magic is creating a thing; what you do with the created thing is irrelevant to the magic.
I'd argue that the fire is a magical effect of the Creo Ignem spell.
A Creo spell creates a thing, the created thing is the effect of the spell. The result of the spell.
Creating a thing is merely what the spell does, not its effect.
So, if a magus casts a country-wide rainstorm spell, everyone who gets wet from the rain gets Warped? If a maga creates a powerful Creo Imaginem illusory spell, everyone who smells it gets Warped? I conjure up a dragon and have it attack a squad of knights, all of those injured get Warped?
So, either your interpretation is incorrect, or the rule needs to be errataed.
Personally, I’d run the game only causing warping from beneficial (or neutral) effects that directly target the person/object being warped.
That avoids ridiculous situations (like using a rain or wind spell to Warp large areas). It also focuses Warping where the mechanic is meant to be applied - limiting the constant use of magic on things.
If you get enjoyment out of applying Warping to the targets of attack spells, feel free to do so. It’s your campaign, and you should have fun your way.
Because allowing indirect effects of magic to warp
a) makes warping much more common than it already is and
b) makes warping much harder to adjudicate.
You seem to assume that a magically created fire warps those it burns.
But then a magically created snake should warp those it bites.
But then a magically controlled mundane snake should warp those it bites.
But then a mundane snake enraged by a magically created fire should warp those it bites.
But then a mundane snake enraged by a mundane torch lit by magic should warp those it bites.
And shouldn't those who hear the cries of the bitten get warped in turn? After all, it's all an effect of lighting that torch via magic.
You mean, more common than you think it should be. And probably not - unless you have a lot more magic thrown around than I would expect is common.
Not really.
A magically created fire is a magical effect, and thus (if powerful or constant) can warp those affected by it.
Correct.
Nope. The snake isn't a magical effect just because it is affected by magic.
No, no, and no again. The mundane snake does not become a magical effect merely because it has been affected in some way by a magical effect.
But please tell me, if a mage casts a Ball of Abysmal Flame, in what way is the created fire not a magical effect?
Looking up the noun "effect" in a dictionary I find the primary meaning as "result, consequence".
The result (effect!) of casting Ball of Abysmal Flame is either (depending on reading) a ball of flame that shoots from your hands, or doing +30 damage to the target.
So, wouldn't a mundane mosquito turned into a snake warp those it bites?
How about a mundane mosquito turned invisible and inaudible via PeIm?
How about a mundane mosquito turned into a fireball?
The creation of the fire is a magical effect.
The burning of a victim in contact with said fire is not a magical effect; it's a mundane side-effect of a magical effect. Just like someone getting bitten by a mundane snake enraged by a mundane torch lit by a magically created fire. Creating the fire? Magical. Lighting the torch? Mundane. Enraging the snake? Mundane. Getting bitten by the snake? Mundane.
I would have tended to inflict a warping point on a Ball of Abysmal Flame, but there is some truth in saying that there is a difference in target and Target with Creo Elemental effects. And if we warp on an elemental effect, then we should warp on being hit by someone / something else under the effect of a Muto / Rego spell. Which feels wrong. Even if both cases interact with Magic Resistance.
The only way this argument can definitively be settled is casting some test spells.
Until then:
We might say there's a difference between being burned by a magical fire and being bruised by a magical rock, or bitten by a magical snake vs being flogged with a magical snake. Because, in many ways, they're completely different. Of course, in other ways they're much alike ... so we might not.
We might pull out the word "penumbra" and use it as tradition and the law do to, to elevate improvisation to high principle. Specifically, if we think an effect is direct enough to cause warping it is "within the penumbra of direct effects". If we don't think it's direct enough, we say, "outside the penumbra."
Being keenly aware that while, with a game, the map really may be the territory, verisimilitude argues for a world that often refuses to neatly fit our definitions. Given that, if we want to, we go beyond the clearly drawn rules that make sure beneficial magics cause warping, and, for the sake of story - or just the-rule-of-cool - expand warping to sometimes include other magics. That requires either house rules - if one desires to maximize clarity and consistency. Or we could just rely on good story-telling from the SG.
Actually, no rule says that warping only comes into play with "beneficial" magics. I think it would be extremely hard to adjudicate it. And if you are hit by a Level 30+ magic intended to harm you, getting a warping point on top of that is rarely a big difference anyway.
The issue here is another one. It's how "direct" the effect of the magic must be on someone affected by it to potentially (depending on Level, Duration etc.) cause warping. Everyone seems to agree that warming someone directly can warp him. Some people think that creating a magical fire, so that it warms a bystander, can warp him. Of those, only a minority think that creating a magical wolf that bites a bystander can warp him. Almost none seem to think that ReAn-controlling a mundane wolf to bite a bystander can warp the bystander. Definitely nobody seems to think that nudging a mundane wolf with magically created fire to bite a bystander can warp the bystander, even though technically the bite is a very indirect effect of the fire-creation spell.
The creation is not a magical effect - it is the process which leads to the effect.
The effect is the created fire - and so, if you are burned by the fire you are "affected by a powerful mystical effect" which is what can cause warping.
If you Muto a mosquito into a fireball, the process is "change mosquito into a fireball" while the effect is "mosquito has been changed into a fireball". (Admittedly a very subtle distinction)
But either way, the mosquito itself does not become a magical effect by being magically changed.
If it had been magically created it would have been a magical effect.
I think the only point on which we really differ is if a magically created thing is a magical effect, where I say it is - and if it is a magical effect it can warp you.
Actually, I wrote that the rules make sure beneficial magics cause warping, not that only beneficial magics cause warping.
But I guess I shouldn't have, because maybe someday a player will have a longevity potion that they just need to look at, and it still works for some bizarre reason involving a little known and as of yet unwritten rule.
I think about that and see if I have any thoughts to share, he said sarcastically.
Then by your very argument, if you create a fireball, the effect is "fireball has been created", not just "fireball" or "the fireball that has been created". It seems inconsistent to me that:
if you magically create a fireball ex nihilo, it will warp whomever it burns.
if you magically transform a mosquito into a fireball, it will not warp whomever it burns.
Except that Ball of Abysmal Flame is explicitly a Creo Ignem effect. The creation of the fire is the magical effect; it is right there in the construction and definition of the spell. The lesser Rego (to move the fire onto the victim) requisite seems to be ignored. Nor is the fire even magically sustained -- it is a momentary effect. So it seems like the interpretation can legitimately be that -- being created by a momentary 'Creo' effect -- the resulting creation is entirely ordinary and non-magical. The magic was used to solely create it, and to move it.
Of course, some might argue that using ReIg to fling an ordinary bonfire (sans fuel) at a person would also cause warping.
I am going to reverse my position after reading the spell again. The moving the fire onto the target is cosmetic; a carry over from previous edition versions of this spell. The guideline is 'Level 25: Create a fire doing +30 damage.', at Voice range for +2 magnitudes. Momentarily engulfing an individual in magically created fire is exactly the effect of the CrIg guideline -- and the guideline is certainly a magical effect.
No, the effect of the guideline is creating a fire burning hot enough to deal +30 damage, which if created in contact with someone acts like a natural Flame of the same magnitude would, and burns them for +30. The only reason for this to warp someone is the fact they're in contact with it as it's being created, which is an interpretation I disagree with, because then you would warp people if you created a fogbank with them inside, or a flash of light that shone on them.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I think BoAF is poorly written, and the Target: Individual refers to the person being struck. If the magic simply created an Individual of fire, then creating it precisely on (or moving it onto) a specific person (and nowhere else) would require a Finesse roll -- but there would be no warping to a person, because the Target would be the fire itself. Since an Individual (person) is the target, they are affected by the magic -- and the guideline is magic. Magic resistance would also (IMHO) not apply, since the Target is the fire, not the person.
If the Mage cast the default parameter version of this spell (Level 25, Range: Personal, Duration: Momentary, Target: Individual) then it would be a little more obvious that a person was the Target.
A fog bank which is Targeted on a volume of air does not target a specific person, so any people inside it are not warped -- but if it specifies 'A person (or Group of people) is engulfed in fog which obscures their vision', then the person is the Target, and warped. Again, the construction of the spell matters.
Of course, all of this is my own (idiosyncratic and non-authoritative) opinion, Your saga may vary.
The target of a Creo spell that actually creates something is the thing created. The target is thus always Individual or Group. (Targets & Creo box p.113)
I concede the point; the target is the fire itself. I still maintain that BoAF is poorly written; at the very least it seems like it should require an attack roll or a finesse roll in order to affect a particular person. Since the fire is the Target, it seems that neither warping nor Magic Resistance should apply (although Form bonuses obviously do).