right now you onlyneed to have acces to an element, it does not use up said element.

there _was_ a change to solidify water that "used up" the water source but afaik thats the only spell that was changed to do that

I also remember a ruling back in the day about using a torch to cast a fire spell using up the torch, hence the question.

This one is a bit of a conundrum. Since we are talking (basically) about only Fire/Water spells. (I, personally, rule that you need access to dirt or unworked stone to cast earth spells and if you do not have access to air then you have a bigger problem than not being able to cast spells)

IMHO, i think elemental spells should use up the source (or prtion thereof, depending on size). Otherwise, being a source of your chosen element becomes a lot less impressive.

Removing access to air from a player isn't that hard. It all depends on how it is imagined flavor wise. One could say that since you don't have access to open air, an enclosed space such as a tight corridor or room, or deep underground, one might not have access to the air element. Or if the area is completely filled with a fog effect, the magical "air" my not count as a source.


You could always use up the earth underneath your opponent's feet.

While it would be cool to say your source is extinguished or used up (and in fact I quoted this earlier in the thread), I think it introduces more questions/concerns than it solves.

The spells aren't transferring the element from one place to another (The fire isn't moving from the source of fire to your opponent). By allowing (or requiring) elements to be 'used up' it begs the question of what happens in that space (as noted above, can you use the earth beneath someone's feet?).

It seems to me that just having the element nearby as 'inspiration' or to provide the necessary energy is sufficient. A minimum amount makes sense (about 1 cubic foot, so that a single match doesn't work for fire and a small vial doesn't work for water).

That said, I feel that the sources *should* be natural and not magical (So lighting a fire sword won't provide fire as it's magical fire without a 'source'. This is just opinion, but it does go towards making those people for whom are their own source a little bit special, while not making it a chore to cast the spells you want or need to cast.

John

I am inclined to say that the source is not used up but must be accessible. Water in a glass or a bucket is accessible. It's not in a closed waterskin. A fire rune by itself isn't a source of fire. A burning sword (activated fire rune) is.

Air is by far the easiest of the elements to access, but there have been mods set underwater and from a consistency standpoint, it is still important.

The goal I think is to keep it simple and intuitive.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

all of this is just arguments to make things harder for one very small subset of spells, 5 spells by my count, elemental bolt and solidify water, elemental tempest, elemental aura, blade of our lord (fire).

The book doesn't define what access means nor does it indicate the source is used up.
There is not an official ruling or FAQ Entry that's currently published on the subject

SO this is certainly a your mileage may vary situation, and depending on your judge your character might be normally or seriously nerfed and you wont know until your in the middle of battle.

Here is my opinion on it, I don't care what you use for a source, as long as it reasonable, I'm not going to have the magic use it up or extinguish it or otherwise arbitrarily cut you off from that source unless it makes a good story reason to do so.

forcing characters to carry packets of earth or flasks of air or water, or dozens of torchs seems to be just an arbitrary time tax, if that was what was intended it would be defined in the rules, because there are a lot of little rules behind that, and the idea itself is antithetical to basic idea of how the Arcanis Game is played ( at least to me)

The entire ruling that solidify water consumed the source was a 'needed a ruling during a BI' issue that we dealt with. Pedro has clarified / fixed the spell in other ways.

So right now, until further notice, unless a spell specifically says that it consumes its source (and presumably details the consequences therein) they do not.

The original question, it really depends on the context. If you are casting a spell that creates a volcano... not sure I'd accept a flaming sword as a source of fire for something like that. (Just an example, not suggesting there is a spell to create a volcano.)

So in my view, its something you need to be reasonable about in on a case-by-case basis.

I would normally concur that it's probably left to 'hand waving' and ease of use. However, if that is the case, why do the rules make such a big point about certain races counting as a source of <element> and why are there only a few spells that require a source? What is the reasoning behind that?

John

My read on Josh and James' comments are that a source is needed, should be reasonable for the task at hand and that it's not used up. As long as the players have an explanation for why a source is available, that's fine. The third floor of a building isn't likely to have a source of earth for example. If the mod states that there are window boxes of flowers though, that could become a source of earth. Otherwise having it as apart of your nature is handy. It also avoids discussions on whether a source is available.

While it is a "feature" of the races in question it's not one that's so important or impactful that they felt that a mechanical balance was needed for it.

Be reasonable as a GM or as a player and it should be fine.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul