Spellcasting and maneuver duration

[sinker]

Relatively simple question. I cast a spell to maneuver. Do I have to devote shifts to duration or is it a fragile/sticky situation like all other maneuvers? What does everyone think?

[crusher_bob]

Here's my take on evocation maneuvers:

You resist the power of the maneuver, not the targeting/control roll
example:
You throw a power 5, maneuver and get a 7 on your control roll.  The person you are hitting with the maneuver resists the power (5) and not the control (7)

Aspects generated by evocation maneuvers are fragile or sticky, as normal.
Regular rules:
If you match their defense, you get a fragile aspect.  If you exceed their defense, you get a sticky aspect.

Duration added to maneuvers denotes the number of turns that the person with the applied aspect is unable to take an action to remove the aspect
Example:
I hit someone with a power 4, duration 3 blinding maneuver.  Their defense is 3, so they get the sticky aspect of blinded.  Normally, they would be able to take an action to remove the aspect any time they wanted to.  But the extra duration of 3 means that they can't do this until the 3 turn duration is up.

[Ala Alba]

Here's an alternate take on it:

Whether a maneuver needs duration or just fragile/sticky depends entirely on whether or not it needs magic to sustain the effect. For example, creating an unnatural fog is maintained by magic, and thus needs a duration. On the other hand, using Earth to break up the ground and place the aspect "Tricky Footing" is a one-time expenditure of magic, and is thus fragile/sticky.

Those may not be the best examples, but I hope I got the idea across?

[crusher_bob]

I'm not really fond of that implementation because it makes certain types of maneuvers out and out better than others. 

A maneuver that costs you a point of mental stress is a pretty horrible trade off to begin with.  That's mostly why I'm in favor of the more powerful versions of evocation maneuvers (aspect stacking and zone wide maneuvers)

[Tedronai]

As much as I might agree with the sentiment, bob, and understand (perhaps even support) a house-rule that would bring about such a situation, it is not my interpretation of the RAW.

Could you provide quotes or references to YS that would support your interpretation?  Particularly with respect to the temporary 'unremovability' of resulting aspects in your interpretation.

[crusher_bob]

Made it up.

[Tedronai]

That's probably a good thing to make abundantly clear from the start in threads like this, wouldn't you say?

[Taran]

That's probably a good thing to make abundantly clear from the start in threads like this, wouldn't you say?

Well, he did say, "here's my take on maneuvers".  But I wasn't too sure either...

[InFerrumVeritas]

Here's an alternate take on it:

Whether a maneuver needs duration or just fragile/sticky depends entirely on whether or not it needs magic to sustain the effect. For example, creating an unnatural fog is maintained by magic, and thus needs a duration. On the other hand, using Earth to break up the ground and place the aspect "Tricky Footing" is a one-time expenditure of magic, and is thus fragile/sticky.

Those may not be the best examples, but I hope I got the idea across?

This is how I read it.  Not balanced, but how I understand RAW.