Invoking your own consequences?

[Tedronai]

Which is where my interpretation, above, comes in.

[Mr. Death]

I think just the fact that you can't double down on it (i.e., you can't tag a consequence on the same action that it's created from/for) is balance enough. And besides, for anything above a Mild consequence, it's a diminishing return--you might get an extra 4 shifts of power from taking a Moderate consequence, but can only tag it for a +2 afterward. Same with Severe or Extreme--they're still only good for one major boost in power.

[Dr.FunLove]

I think it works very well, thematically. For those all or nothing moments, or those times when any regard for personal safety is thrown out the window. I jive.

[Sanctaphrax]

Page 106 says tags are for when you make a roll to create or gain access to an Aspect. Which wouldn't apply in this case, I think.

I choose this interpretation because the alternative is dumb. Taking a mild consequence shouldn't be a good thing. But if it's taggable for you, then its downside is outweighed by the +2 bonus from the tag.

(Of course, this is all a bit of a shell game because the rules are not nearly well-written enough to take this level of scrutiny. I'm totally applying post-facto justification to make the rules the way I think they should be. You probably are too, it's not really avoidable unless you're willing to accept Schrodinger's RPG.)

Spellcasting is powerful the way I read it, but not really overpowered. Taking consequences to fuel a spell is effective but not game-breaking or something you want to do all the time. Your interpretation changes that, at least somewhat.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Scant, that page then references the list on page 105 directly.  Specifically on that list is "Inflict a consequence."

Technically, by the rules, you cannot get a free tag on your own aspects (per page 106) but this is directly contradicted through out the text.

Basically, you're right.  You can't read the rules that closely.  But there is no specific contradiction, so I see no reason to say that, by RAW, you can't tag your own consequences if you inflict them upon yourself. 

I'm not saying it's not a good houserule though.

[Sanctaphrax]

As you say, there are contradictions.

Therefore, there are no true RAW. Interpretation is not only possible but required.

One of the possible interpretations is unbalanced, so let's go with a different one.

[JDK002]

Maybe it's just semantics, but would the wording "make a roll to create or gain access to an aspect" be important?  When taking a consequence to super charge a spell you never actually roll anything to create said consequence, possibly implying "no roll = no free tag".

[Mr. Death]

If that were the case, navel gazing maneuvers would be useless.

[Tedronai]

It would have to be 'make a roll or spend a FP to discover or create an aspect' so as to account for declarations.

If that were the case, navel gazing maneuvers would be useless.

How so?
NGMs are effected by means of a roll.  They're not free aspects.

[Mr. Death]

I was given to understand that navel gazing maneuvers didn't need a roll, because there was no opposition to them.

[Dr.FunLove]

And the "roll" in the case of causing a consequence would be whatever one is doing to themselves to cause the consequence. Right? Or are we assuming it's a given that a person can injure themselves just so?

[Taran]

The GM decides the difficulty of all Naval Gazing Maneuvers.  They're not free. 

[JDK002]

And the "roll" in the case of causing a consequence would be whatever one is doing to themselves to cause the consequence. Right? Or are we assuming it's a given that a person can injure themselves just so?

it's kind of unclear in general.  I mean if you're activly trying to injure yourself I would probably let the player make an attack roll aginst themselves with no defense roll.

Bur in the case of super charging a spell via taking a consequence, IIRC the consequence is taken before the control roll is made.  Causing the consequence to basically come out of thin air.

[Mr. Death]

I'll have to check the rulebook, because I was fairly sure the use of the term "navel gazing" meant that it was basically a no-difficulty, if it makes sense go ahead, type of maneuver.

As for charging the spell via consequence, I think the idea there is you're calling up power like normal, only taking it as a consequence instead of stress (at least for Evocation).

[Dr.FunLove]

I could by that, even if one is jumping to stress tracks - I could also see some GM's wanting a roll involved if it's power drawn from the physical stress track or tags as a result of consequence.