The Poison upgrade for Claws might fit your needs.

Beat me to it.

Also, IMO the custom power as written undermines some of the base mechanics of combat.  You're effectivly allowing the player a chance to place a consequence on anyone they attack.  Remmeber aspects still follow all the same rules regardless of how they came to be, meaning the player would get a free tag EVERY time this happened, as well as further invokes with fate points.

The tracking bonus combined with a free aspect tag could turn into a nightmare for the GM.  It would make any npc hit with this power almost as good as dead, as it would be hard to make sure they are able to run off and "live to fight another day".  Bit some GMs may not care much about that.

As far as the recovery delay, I don't know how often you would see that actually be helpful.  Generally speaking, the mooks (and supporting villains) will fight to the death.  Main antagonists will be saved by concessions usually, and are typically killed off by the end of the scenario.

Not trying to dump all over your idea or anything.  Just giving my two cents of feedback. =)

A pyromancer with the Trouble aspect of "Blazing Insecurity".

A player who has a sadistic trickster-like demon named Whisper with Trouble "Whisper in My Ear".

A werespider thief/spy with "I'm so professional, it Hurts".

At first my reaction was "sure why not?  You can do that with powers."

As I started to think about it more it seems either A. Redundant or B. A way to try and weasel multiple +2 bonuses from a single fate point.

In situation A, why bother going through the trouble of making a Stunt on the fly when you could just invoke an aspect for the same +2?

In situation B, why would you EVER just invoke with a fate point for a one-time +2 when you could spend the same FP to make a stunt that lasts the entire scene?

Tough Stuff is a Stunt, which by their nature are only applicable in a limited set of circumstances. Therefore should not be taken as instruction for how the general rules work. Otherwise you'd have all kinds of limitations on skills and equipment, and if Tough Stuff is considered mechanically the same as wearing Armor 1 (since you make your players specify what damage their equipment-based armor protects against), not only would anyone with a spare Refresh be foolish not to take it, but it's actually superior to wearing armor that has a rating of 1, since you never have to take the time to put it on and can never have it taken from you.

I always interpreted the comment notes from Harry, Bob and Will as suggestions for different ways to use the core information, since almost all of the notes that clarify rules are in that vein. Remember that the conceit of the DFRPG is that it's a game written by Will. So the commentary notes do not form a part of the text of the final "product" that Will is setting out to publish.

If it was intended that the core rules only allowed specific armor to protect against certain types of damage, then the rules in the armor section would state that you have to specify what each item of armor protects against.

Your rule is fine, but it's a houserule. You could also allow declarations, maneuvers and compels to represent certain armor types being ineffective against certain attacks, given suitable circumstances.

I agree that using a stunt as an example for general armor rules isn't accurate.  Since, as you pointed out, they follow their own sub-set of rules.

I also think handling different armor types via declairations is about as good a middle ground as you can get.  No matter what way you swing the armor rules, there's nothing stopping a player from declairing a Kevlar vest won't protect them from a sword.  Tagging for effect to negate the armor.

This makes for an interesting concept of "all armor protects you all the time, except when it doesn't."

While that's likely the case in reality, the DFRPG rules, and FATE in general, make no distinction between armour types. The rules are relatively streamlined and generalised, so a piece of mundane Armor 2 is going to be Armor 2 against punches, knives, bullets and explosions.

I know they make a point to say that about blocks in YS, but is that explicitly stated to also be the case with armor?  I don't recall anything about all armorsmith being equal so to speak.  Though I also don't recall any mention of specific armor types either.  So I very well may be mixng up the narrative in YS together with the narrative of the source material.

I don't think a hunger track is quite right for the concept.  Honestly I would say keep it simple.  Make him have an aspect or two tied to his relation to the spirit, let him take sponsored debt, and let compels limit his actions.

Or if you're okay with custom powers, Limitation or Spiritual Co-pilot in the custom powers thread could fit the idea.

As already stated, there isn't much in the way of mechanical representation.  The best thing I can think of is allow contact aspects that deal with larger organizations to be at a +3 or even +4, or give multiple +2 tags based on how you rolled.  Though this would need to be under very specific situations as to not be abused.

I'll also point out to consider the game rules are meant to simulate the books.  Which are very personal and (mostly) smaller in scale individually.  So providing a group is holding to that design concept, it's not horribly often a large organization is going to bring a large group to bare against the opposition.