If I am correct, here, the point of contention is based around whether or not the backlash "brings-up" the Discipline roll used to target your spell.
Example:
My hypothetical example wizard Crackin McFadden decides to cast a 7-power thunder spell. He calls up the power, rolls his Discipline and gets a 5. He takes the 2 backlash and dishes out the spell. His opponent, Higgs Oucherson rolls a 6 defense.
Case 1 is that his backlash "dragged-up" the control of the spell up to a 7 and he would hit.
Case 2 is that even with the backlash, he missed because his targeting was inferior to the enemy's defense.
I contend that Case 2 is correct, and here's why:
Rotes.
Rotes were mentioned before, and I'd like to go back to that for a second to stress a point. Rotes state that you automatically control the spell, but you still have to roll to target. So, does this mean that if your targetting roll is lower than the power of the rote, you count as having a targetting roll that equals the power of the rote? It doesn't make sense.
If rotes are "always controlled" (as in RAW) and some of you guys are suggesting that Case 1 is correct, or that "control" is a minimum for how well you target, that would suggest that if Crackin McFadden made that same 7-power spell into a rote, even if his Discipline was rolled at a 5 in the future, he would have an effective 7 minimum. After all, the power is "controlled" automatically, "dragging-up" the roll.
Is that a clear example? Backlash should not effect your targeting.