I had a thought. This is the "it's a question" thing from the end of my last post in my game.
Here is how things appear to me at the present moment:
1: It is possible to destroy an object via magic, in a high-magic Verse.
2: It is normally not possible to destroy an object via magic in a low-magic Verse.
3: It is possible to sacrifice an object, and designate that it has been "consumed by the magic," even in a low-magic Verse (as I myself have done with several emeralds that I would not normally have been able to destroy).
What this leads me to conclude is:
A: It is possible to destroy an object (an errant iceberg, for instance) even in a low-magic Verse, simply by sacrificing it to power a spell that would normally be otherwise possible within said Verse.
After all, it wouldn't be fair if I could sacrifice that iceberg, and still have it there, to use as a wall against an enemy ship, for instance, right? It would have to be completely and utterly gone, destroyed beyond all use, wouldn't it?
Despite the handy example drawn from my current in-game predicament, I've actually been contemplating a spell like this from back when I sacrificed those emeralds. The idea I had originally was to 'sacrifice' part of a castle wall in order to bore a hole in it. Actually the spell idea that went with that was along the lines of "sacrifice it now and store the energy for later use" but I haven't really figured out how to word that spell yet (for instance, I sacrifice this iceberg, and icebergs are a fairly usual thing, so I would get a +4 for it (maybe +6 for it also being inconveniently large)... only I don't use that +4 right now, I save it in a sort of arcane battery and discharge it next time I need a +4 for something - maybe it decays to a +3 if I wait too long, or somebody jimmies my battery when I'm not looking).