pull spell, others?

[WillH]

Except that most people don't bring a second weapon with them and sometimes it is not feasible to have a second weapon. I.e. someone is not going to have a second Sword of the Cross if he's disarmed and a wizard is not going to have a second focus. Similarly, most warriors can't carry a second battleaxe or AK-47; there's simply not enough room.

Well if they don't have a second weapon, what I said before obviously doesn't apply. Your statement about most people* not bringing a second weapon isn't true. Their second weapon probably isn't as good or as big, but they would still be armed. Besides what if they switch to fists? How is a disarmed aspect still relevant? Mechanically speaking that is, they still have to deal with the fact they don't have the weapon or focus in the fiction e.g. can't make a guns attack if you don't have a gun.

* Well, I'm assuming people who expect to be in a fight and are armed is what we're talking about by most people here. 

[Bernd]

I still tend to say that you need a maneuver in order to remove a sticky (and also a fragile one that has not been tagged yet) aspect coming from a maneuver. But the aspect you put on someone must be justified and someone with weapons on hand (but not drawn weapons) cannot be considered "Disarmed", so the aspect should be something like "Lost his Gun/Focus/Whatever". He still has do a maneuver to get his gun/focus/whatever back, but can draw another weapon. There is an example in which a character aims, but has to use a fitting aspect (p. 114).

Why I think you cannot remove an aspect coming from a maneuver? Every line of text regarding temporary aspects coming from maneuvers say you must take a maneuver roll to remove it, at least against the environment at mediocre (+0) and use your action during your exchange. I've re-read pages 114 (Temporary Aspects) and 207-210 (Maneuvers).

[dlw32]

I'm still new at this mind you (and possibly bearing the baggage of many years of many different RPG's), but I don't get running this as a maneuver.

The target has a metal object in hand (let's pretend he only has one on his person). I cast a spell that pulls it to my hand. He's not going to re-arm just because the aspect Disarmed is fragile; my PC's not going to say "oh, it's your turn now" and give it back. The target is going to have to pry it from my hand now.

I get adding maneuvers to a zone like Icy Surface or High Winds or Unstable Footing. I get adding maneuvers to people (though that still feels like it should be an attack; they get to resist) like Knocked Down or Blind or Weakened.

Disarmed doesn't feel like an aspect.

[Deadmanwalking]

It explicitly is, though. See YS p. 209.

It could (and should) be assumed that if you only beat them by enough to get a Fragile Aspect, you just managed to knock the weapon aside and really messed up their grip, or knocked it down precisely at their feet, or something else quick and easy to recover from, depriving them of it's use only very briefly indeed. Now if you get it as a Sticky Aspect, then you can take it away from them and use it yourself, and them taking it back requires a Maneuver on their part to remove the Aspect and get it back.

Does that make more sense?

[greycouncilmember]

It explicitly is, though. See YS p. 209.

It could (and should) be assumed that if you only beat them by enough to get a Fragile Aspect, you just managed to knock the weapon aside and really messed up their grip, or knocked it down precisely at their feet, or something else quick and easy to recover from, depriving them of it's use only very briefly indeed. Now if you get it as a Sticky Aspect, then you can take it away from them and use it yourself, and them taking it back requires a Maneuver on their part to remove the Aspect and get it back.

Does that make more sense?

What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of the book, but what if you just want to take the person's weapon and not have to worry about a fragile aspect?  it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat.  Time might be better spent actually doing damage.  Sorry if I'm missing something basic... 

[Deadmanwalking]

What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of the book, but what if you just want to take the person's weapon and not have to worry about a fragile aspect?  it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat.  Time might be better spent actually doing damage.  Sorry if I'm missing something basic... 

Uh...you only put a Fragile Aspect on someone if you tie their defense roll (or, with magic, use only 3 shifts of power), if you beat it by even a single point, it's Sticky. So if you're unarmed, they're definitively better (since you do no Stress at all with an attack that hits by zero).

You're almost never trying for Fragile Aspects. Though even if you were, they're worth it if you use a bit of teamwork, since four people can do them while a fifth (your heavy hitter) can then tag them all and take something the hell out.

[WillH]

it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat.

Disregard my comments on removing the disarmed aspect with a simple action. I was arguing an edge case there, not the norm. Anyway, I've thought about it and now think the way to go there would be to not allow a disarmed aspect in the first place if it could easily be dismissed by the situation (going with something like I have his gun as suggested above).

Remember you team mates can make that free tag too. Worst case scenario, your opponent spends an entire action to remove the aspect, you come out even there. Keep in mind you could use your free tag if you're opposing his roll to remove the aspect.

[Belial666]

Or you could just do direct damage with an attack (or the 'breaking" use of Might) on their weapon. 8+ shifts would be enough to break a wall. Breaking their weapon should be much easier.

[wyvern]

Er, no.  Fate doesn't work like that.  You want to do a called shot to a specific target area?  That's a maneuver.  You want to disarm them?  That's a maneuver.  Now, if you make that a sticky disarmed tag, and then pick up the weapon (probably a supplemental action for you) - *then* you could break it.  But as long as it's in their hands, no, it's *not* easier to break than a wall.  Walls don't dodge.

Breaking someone's weapon would be a fairly good example of a minor to moderate consequence (depending on how much time and effort it'd take for that character to acquire a replacement), or result of a concession, though.  But, again, you as the attacker can't just declare that.

[Belial666]

I beg to differ. YS320 says;

Breaking
Items can take stress like characters can;
assume that an item has 2 stress boxes, modified
by the item quality in the same way as the
Endurance skill (page 130). An item “defends”
against attempts to break it using either its
quality rating or an appropriate skill used by
whoever is holding the item. Most items do not
suffer consequences; once their stress track is
bypassed, they are considered inoperable.

So, they can defend with weapons or fists or guns or even athletics against an attack on the weapon they are holding but said weapon can be attacked and broken just fine. Naturally, items of power can't be broken like this and especially sturdy and hard items (like a sword made of metal) are going to have a very high "quality" rating but something like a wooden focus or a gun? Easy meat for the guy swinging that battleaxe to cleave in two.

[wyvern]

I find it interesting that your example is a one-off section on uses of the craftsmanship skill, and that there's *nothing* in the chapters on combat implying that you can do this in a combat setting.

I direct you to YS308, where it points out that intent precedes mechanics.  If your intent is to deprive your opponent of the use of their weapon, that's a maneuver to disarm.  If the intent is to *permanently* deprive them the use of their weapon, that's trying to inflict a consequence on them - a straight up attack, albeit possibly one preceded by a maneuver to declare a called shot.  If you succeed, then they can accept the suggested consequence (broken weapon), or substitute one of their own (like sprained wrist, or broken wrist, or what-have-you, depending on the level of consequence involved.)

[greycouncilmember]

If you give somebody an aspect like "Blinded", that gives you the ability to try to compel them potentially to hit another target right?  What is the cost of that, is it a fate point or would it be free if you invoked it on the free use?

[wyvern]

I'd tend to say that would cost you a fate point; your free tag on "blinded" would, after all, only give you a +2 bonus to your defense.  Of course, the GM could *also* compel that blinded aspect - though more likely to make them just plain miss (or accidentally set the building on fire if they're using that kind of weapon) - or even just to make them not attack because they know they can't see what they're doing.

[Belial666]

My intent is to permanently disable/break their weapon, not their ability to hold a weapon. Thus breaking objects rules are used. Also, Might refers to that section about breaking things as well. It is not only for craftmanship. If it were, it would say so. And how do you use craftmanship to attack an item held from an enemy anyway? (cause for them to have to defend against something they are holding, you are obviously attacking it)

Besides, you can use Might to snatch the weapon then use a supplemental action to break it in your hands.

[Deadmanwalking]

I've been known to disagree with Belial666 quite a lot upon occasion, but he's spot on on this one. Destroying objects in combat is absolutely a valid tactic for someone using Evocation or possessing Inhuman or better Strength. It fits the game's flavor, makes sense, and there's no earthly reason it shouldn't work.

Now, a sword (just for example) is going to be just ridiculously tough and require quite the hit to destroy (and a smart weapon specialist will have some backup weapons on hand anyway)...but it's still a valid tactic.