Helping people flesh out a system of magic should, frankly, be one of our foundation strengths. This question was closed as Primarily Opinion-Based (POB).
SE's definition of POB invalidates all questions about magic. No one has "facts, reference, or specific expertise" in the OP's magic system (or any other form of magic). This led me to ask Magic is primarily opinion-based by definition, so what does a POB VTC mean? which, itself, led me to make this proposal for a WB-centric definition of POB.
In my opinion (and I grant that it's only my opinion), the target question does not fail the proposed definition for POB. The OP has provided a reasonably complete description of his/her magic system and answers that meet basic WB.SE standards (e.g., no one-liners, should have a paragraph of description justifying your answer) are easily judged against the proposed magic system.
Further, the OP is asking a reasonably scoped question. (OK, to be fair, he/she's asking two, but they're so related that I'm willing to be forgiving and not close as too-broad.)
Therefore, I invite people to either vote to reopen the question or please post explanations below that justify the cause of closure so we can better refine our review standards.
For the record, after 18 months on this site, I could be convinced to completely remove "primarily opinion-based" as a rationale for closure, leading to asking about Allowing a site to modify VTC text or disable a VTC reason altogether on meta.stackexchange.com. But for now, it's a thorn in our side.