Targeting and control....

[UmbraLux]

Your victim rolls against the spell's power - the shifts you put into it and controlled successfully. 

For a maneuver, there is no 'targeting' roll.  Just a control roll (if it's not a rote).  Shifts of power determine the maneuver effectiveness.  So if you put 5 shifts in and the defender's roll is also 5, you have a fragile maneuver.  If you'd put 4 in you would have failed and at 6 shifts it would be sticky.  (See YS252.)

Basically, if you expect your target to have a strong defense* you'll want to put lots of shifts into the spell.  If you figure the target can't or won't defend, three shifts are the default though you might go four if targeting an enemy.  That way you get at least a fragile aspect if they should happen to roll a +4 on the die.  (Dice are all that matter if they're surprised or don't have an appropriate defense.)

*In many ways you're better off with self maneuvers. 

[devonapple]

*In many ways you're better off with self maneuvers.

::sigh:: tell me about it.

So it sounds like we had a bad rules call: the target should have saved against the successfully controlled Maneuver strength, not my atrocious (but Backlash-bolstered) control/targeting roll?

[UmbraLux]

Don't know what happened in your game, but it is the shifts of successfully controlled power which determine the maneuver strength.  Your control roll only affects it if you fail and let some shifts go to fallout...reducing the spell's power.

Here's the relevant quote from YS252:  "By default, pulling off most maneuvers requires 3 shifts of power, but if the target has an appropriate resisting skill rated higher than Good (+3), that skill total determines the required number of shifts."  In other words, you need more shifts of power than the defender's skill roll. 

[wyvern]

In other words, you need more shifts of power than the defender's skill roll.

Not how I read that.  RAW, you need shifts of power equal to or greater than the target's (unrolled) skill.  An evocation maneuver only gets dice involved for control - or no dice at all if it's a rote.

I'm somewhat inclined to houserule changes to that for my game, but haven't worked out exactly what houserules I actually want to use.

[UmbraLux]

It could be read that way.  I guess I read "skill total" as the end result.  Not just the skill rating.  Probably also extrapolating from non-magical skill vs skill maneuvers.

Can't disagree with your interpretation though - one more area left to groups to decide.

[computerking]

Not how I read that.  RAW, you need shifts of power equal to or greater than the target's (unrolled) skill.  An evocation maneuver only gets dice involved for control - or no dice at all if it's a rote.

I'm somewhat inclined to houserule changes to that for my game, but haven't worked out exactly what houserules I actually want to use.

Hmm, I was making the same assumption as Umbralux. Makes Maneuver Rotes more useful than I thought they were.

[UmbraLux]

Spent some time re-reading the relevant sections.  It doesn't really clear up the issue.

The phrase "skill total" is used only twice.  Once in the evocation maneuver section and once in the section on explosions (YS325) under Running the Game - and there it's fairly clearly meant to be the skill as written on the sheet, not the roll plus rating. 

On the flip side, maneuvers targeted at an opponent are explicitly contested actions.  (So much so that some have argued maneuvers can only occur in conflicts.)  In any case, the conflict section on maneuvers (YS207) explicitly states "...a maneuver is performed much like an attack—you roll an appropriate skill against the opponent and try to beat the opponent’s defense roll."  Examples on YS208 show the skill vs skill used.

Going back to YS252, evocation maneuvers are explicitly based on shifts of power which is only indirectly related to a skill roll.  "By default, pulling off most maneuvers requires 3 shifts of power, but if the target has an appropriate resisting skill rated higher than Good (+3), that skill total determines the required number of shifts."

The options presented appear to be either an uncontested roll for targeted evocation maneuvers (just need shifts equal to skill total) or opposing shifts of power with a skill roll.  (A third option might be opposing the control roll but that's not presented by the book.)  Either way, we're ignoring conflicting information. 

Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model.  Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier. 

[sinker]

Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model.  Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier.

Actually I would argue that this is a good reason to make targeted maneuvers easier. Why make any maneuver more difficult than another? Why encourage people to choose one maneuver over another? They have the same effects, and for that matter self and scene maneuvers can be more powerful as they can effect any and all targets.

[UmbraLux]

Actually I would argue that this is a good reason to make targeted maneuvers easier. Why make any maneuver more difficult than another? Why encourage people to choose one maneuver over another? They have the same effects, and for that matter self and scene maneuvers can be more powerful as they can effect any and all targets.

Partially because I detest "take out by maneuver" and compels / invokes for effect are the true strength of any aspect.  Partially because I think it should be a contested action and stay consistent with skill maneuvers.  Partially because you'd need the extra shifts anyway.  But mostly because it could be used to 'softly' lock an opponent down if you have numbers on your side (potentially cost them their next turn - repeatedly).

Let's say you did go with the model of just matching the victim's skill.  You have a very short lived aspect, no matter how much you put into duration.  All the victim need do is spend a turn taking action to remove it.  Should be easy since all you did was match his skill.  In a one vs one scenario, it's a net zero - those two action may as well never have occurred.  In a many vs one (or few) scenario, the solo (or smaller group) gets faced with the choice of losing an action to remove the aspect(s) or getting slammed with lots of easy and long lasting tags.

[GryMor]

The options presented appear to be either an uncontested roll for targeted evocation maneuvers (just need shifts equal to skill total) or opposing shifts of power with a skill roll.  (A third option might be opposing the control roll but that's not presented by the book.)  Either way, we're ignoring conflicting information. 

Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model.  Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier.

I actually interpreted as a third option, you need to have power equal to their actual resisting skill (per the magic rules) and if they want a defense roll, they roll vs your control/targeting roll (per the generic maneuver rules). An example would be really useful.

[sinker]

Partially because I detest "take out by maneuver" and compels / invokes for effect are the true strength of any aspect.  Partially because I think it should be a contested action and stay consistent with skill maneuvers.  Partially because you'd need the extra shifts anyway.  But mostly because it could be used to 'softly' lock an opponent down if you have numbers on your side (potentially cost them their next turn - repeatedly).

Because the GM and the table at large is powerless to stop or change any of these things...

More than anything I think it makes maneuvering with evocation a more practical option, on par with blocking or attacking, especially at the lower levels, and it will only be an issue if the table allows it to be.

[UmbraLux]

Because the GM and the table at large is powerless to stop or change any of these things...

I'd rather worry about other things. 

More than anything I think it makes maneuvering with evocation a more practical option, on par with blocking or attacking, especially at the lower levels, and it will only be an issue if the table allows it to be.

Shrug, there are two contradictory possibilities.  I'm not going to argue against either.  Just laid out reasons for my choice.