So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?

An Invoke is not the same thing as a Compel. But it is a blurry line. I'm hoping for clarification.

LATER EDIT: Oh my bad ... I just reread the above statement. That'll teach me to post without sufficient caffeine
"A tag is an invoke (tag just means free invoke); an invoke can be done as an invoke for effect; an invoke triggers a compel, which is run between the GM and the target."

It occurs to me I need to look up how GM's can use fate Points. I know GM's get the fate points characters use up but do they then get to use them for NPC's? I'd guess so In any case how much fate does the GM get to begin with or is it by non-player character? In which case NPC's with negative Refresh are kind of boned...well except for the whole ultimate cosmic power thing.

Most NPCs don't have Fate points. The bigger baddies might have a couple. The Big Evil Bad Guy will have a boatload. I think the refresh rate bit is primarily aimed at player characters as a balancing measure between supernatural hard hitters and fragile mortals.

Also, remember that free tags don't need Fate points, so if you take a consequence, even Joe Red Shirt firing at you can tag it if he's the first to try.

Yup. Don't forget the 'freebie' mild consequence you can clear away as a supplemental action one or more times per scene from Recovery powers.

Now if you really want to burn your brain, try this one: You get a Fate point for every consequence taken in a conflict, right? Does this include the additional mild consequences from skills and powers? What about those consequences that are downgraded after the fight so that some of them disappear entirely. Do you cash out and get Fate points from consequences you've actually taken during the fight, or just the ones that actually remain after the fight?

Not quite. It's more WCV incite emotion. Plus they ain't human.

True ... they're not wizards. They're just supernatural fuzzy little cartoon bears with cute tattoos.

By your line of reasoning, if you made a kinetic shield while people were shooting at you in order to shoot back, THAT would be breaking the laws of magic since you're shielding yourself in order to kill.

That's ridiculous.

You're right, that would be ridiculous if that's what I meant. It's a good thing that it's not. I'm saying specifically to use magic to either directly kill someone, or to incapacitate someone beyond any ability to be aware of their very immediate doom. I'm not talking about restraining yourself to use magic in creating a scenario where you'll have the upper hand, which is precisely what a warden does.

And remember, a warden is usually MUCH more powerful than those warlocks they are sent to take down.

The tactics are simple:

Warden runs after warlock and corners him. He starts by creating a personal long lasting block that is a great deal stronger than anything the warlock can throw at him. Then he likely creates a huge zone barrier to cut off the warlock's escape. Then he draws his sword and advances on the warlock. Warlock tries to throw a fireball ... sizzles on warden's shield. Draws a gun and fires on warden ... which also sizzles on warden's shield. Warlock tries desperately to throw up a block of his own which warden counterspells himself or using the enchantments on his sword. Warden draws back with his sword with nothing but his Weapons skill to aid him, and decapitates the warlock who royally failed his Athletics roll to dodge.

Again, it's a question of free will. The warlock had no chance magically, but could still choose to surrender. He could (and likely did) choose to dodge or parry. He *did* have the ability to defend himself and was very much aware of his own actions and the actions of the warlock. He was simply outclassed by not only a master evoker, but a master swordsman as well. Wardens' swords are not merely ceremonial you know. They are very very good at actually using them.

And there is at least one stated example in the books where an accused warlock is brought to trial. Which likely means that the warlock did knock him unconscious and dragged him before the council instead of dispatching him immediately.

By your definition, any wizard could simply bypass the first law by casually wandering around, putting people to sleep, and slitting their throats. Rinse and repeat. That's hubris of the very highest order, mate.

And what I am saying is that the setting is malleable and subject to each gaming groups desires. The game is awesome no doubt, as are the novels, but like anything else they are not perfect and do not cover every scenario. In this case players wanting to play non-human characters. If someone wants to play the youngest of the Gruffs, a demon from the darkest reaches of hell, a spirit of air and intellect, or even one of the Little folk, then I say let them. Nothing should impede upon the overall enjoyment of a game, including the base setting. It is for this reason a GM can either can alter or outright ignore any part of the setting or rules. While I can respect your desire to stay as close to the source material as possible, I also know that for many things its incomplete and can use some fixing up. via hand-waving, if necessary.

Mate, I'm not contesting the point that GM's word is law. It's the Golden Rule and it exists in every game for a very good reason. What I'm saying is that when you're involving yourself in a discussion about game and setting mechanics on the game's official forums, you can't go around telling people they are wrong because you house ruled it otherwise. I mean, I could believe a Toyota is a german car, but I'm not about to go to a Toyota dealership and claim to people there that it's german just because it makes sense in my head

Don't forget you keep accruing those Lawbreaker-tinged Aspects every three times after you break the same Law beyond your second Lawbreaker.

Oooo, true, had forgotten that you keep swapping all your Aspects. I had assumed you only ever swapped one per Law you break.

Wrong.

This is simply covered by compelling the High Concept and a clever bit of GMing. What most people seem to be obsessed with is that refresh = free will. But the thing is that is just a thematic justification for a metagame mechanic easily hand-waved by the player and GM.

Actually, this game's very core mechanic is precisely that refresh = free will. It's even one of the basic and inviolate Maxims of the Dresdenverse: Monsters have Nature, Mortals have choice (YS10). To quote the text: "Fae literally cannot step outside their natures or break oaths".

It's why the Lawbreaker rules work as brilliantly as they do. In fact, I find them a better 'dark side' mechanic than any of the Star Wars RPGs. If you break the law, you'll lose a refresh point. Break it a few times, you'll lose another. Afterwards, you'll get a new aspect designed specifically to compel you to break it again. And if enough of those Lawbreakers lower your refresh rate to 0, your character has effectively succumbed to the dark side,