As far as I can tell Compels never give the victim of the Compel a penalty to their roll (in a mechanical sense). They are very powerful - which is why the option is there to buy out of them. In the circumstance you describe, if the GM accepts the compel on the aspect, then the Friendigo fails in his attempt to attack Bobby. If he buys out of the compel then he can act. The same is true if it were a PC suffering from the compel. Remember as well that Compels are negotiated. If the player is suggesting a compel they should have an idea as to how they want it to play out, and you can discuss it until you are happy with the proposed outcome. The consequence you're looking at in the example is probably a severe one rather than mild or moderate, so it's not out of the question to say that the compel forces the Friendigo to flee the combat - or at least attempt to.

Or you could just perform an evocation maneuver with enough shifts to make it sticky... Probably more effective in the long run, and you don't need to house-rule it.

It just seemed odd that the item creation section was the only place power foci are mentioned, especially when in the evocation section (Pg 250) it specifically excludes them, but not other foci.

I agree with Papa Gruff. Two things to bear in mind... Firstly the section on page 250 is just a summary which is expanded by what follows. The second is that that there is no roll for a power foci to modify, it just adds it's rating on to your conviction for the purposes of working out how much power you can safely summon. I think that the only reason control foci are mentioned in that summary is that they directly affect a dice roll. Maybe they should be mentioned on page 250 just for clarity, but possibly the writers (struggling to edit the word count) thought that was a little redundant because it's covered later on in the Evocation section, as well as in the crafting section of Thaumaturgy, and the description of Evocation within the Supernatural Powers chapter.

I'm not sure I'd want to be in the shoes of the WCV who's just been pinned down by a Troll Scion and placed an aspect of Intense Lust on them. That could get messy...

I'm fairly sure there's an example of a WCV feeding and preventing their victim from acting in the books, so I'd be inclined to allow a WCV to use the block ability of Incite Emotions and to feed at the same time, the block would be against the TC's attempts to maintain the grapple. Essentially you're saying that the fogging effect of the emotion makes the target confused as to their goals in the grapple - and if they fail it turns from a serious fighting grapple to a weaker lustful embrace - which gives the WCV more freedom of action. The only difference between the two is that once contact is broken between the WCV and the TC (by the TC breaking through the block) the emotion will vanish almost instantly and they'll need to re-establish contact. If the Incite Emotion is done as a maneuver then obviously the aspect is still there for a short time, and is capable of being compelled to force the TC back into the feeding embrace of the WCV (or to do something else which allows the WCV to continue feeding).

I would however require that the WCV break the grapple strength to use their Incite Emotion successfully. I think this has been discussed on another thread. The problem is that many people seems to view a successful grapple as simply immobilising the opponent - as a kind of static tableau - when it's more likely to be a great deal of shifting around and struggling on both sides.

Personally I'd rethink it. It's unlikely to have the same impact as it would have had before, and the players may assume that you've just adapted their idea.

It's not damage avoidance. Consequences are quite specificly damage. Within the system you can lose the fight without taking any damage whatsoever - you just let yourself be taken out, or declare a concession. The moment you decide to take a consequence you are declaring specific damage to your character rather than general roughing up. If you don't take a consequence then after the fight (assuming it's not a fight to the death - which the system discourages anyway) your stress tracks refresh and you have no long term effects to deal with - except for the things that come naturally from losing the conflict. Stress is the damage avoidance part of combat. Consequences are channelling damage to a specific effect so you can stay in a fight, and they stay with you.

This subject was discussed here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,20636.15.html

My point of view is let them fight all they like. The Council is there for their protection. Not being a member, and being powerful enough to be a member generally puts you on the hit list of every other Supernatural faction, who either want to recruit you (willing or not) or kill you to stop others getting their hands on you. By comparison the price of Council Membership - don't break any of the Laws of Magic, generally attend meetings if it's convenient, represent the council in an official capacity if called upon to do so - is cheap. Especially when you consider that not only do you gain the protection of the Council under the Accords, but now have access to a massive amount of magical experience and lore. It's a carrot and stick situation. Work out which your players will respond best to.