What do you mean?  Like give them a bigger refresh bonus as they progress up?

Either that, or more skill points at higher refreshes. E.g.

Pure mortal +2 - Add an additional skill point for every point of refresh you have before adjustments by stunts.

Well, in this case I'd probably say lore or academics would work as attack stats easily.

OK, a bit more realistic reason these rules might be used: Our theoretical players enter a warehouse where Bob the gun toting nut waits to shoot them. There's a standoff and the players realize very early that Bob is quite unhinged but in a straight out shootout there's no way that everyone leaves without some major damage. So they try something a little different...

Since Bob is obsessed with guns, and not particularly mentally stable, they try using their knowledge of weapons to see if they can't push him over the edge. They start up a conversation and try to convince him that his memory is wrong: he's got the safety on his gun on... did he use the right ammo? Did he assemble the gun right the last time he cleaned it? You know, maybe you should put that gun down, it'll explode and kill you if you screwed up.

Mechanically, I'd handle this as a series of social manoeuvres followed by one major mental attack. I'd probably let Bob defend with either academics or guns, and he'd probably start attacking on his turn anyways. In this case, the mental attack is delivered socially, but none the less it's an attempt to break him mentally, so I'd make the attack mental.

As a note: this is entirely situational. It's probably only worth it against someone who's mentally unstable (read: already has a few mental consequences in the first place, possibly from a different encounter?) Still, I'd love if my players came up with this kind of strategy in a campaign and figured out a way to exploit an enemies weakness rather than simply fighting him on his terms. As another note: I houserule that you have a different set of consequences for social, physical and mental tracks, so this might have to be handled slightly differently if you play by the normal rules (aspects instead of consequences on a person with this kind of weakness?)

If it were all and only about optimization, nobody would play a Pure Mortal. Hell, few people would play anything except a Wizard.

Actually, I've been thinking of house ruling the pure mortal bonus - it seems like one of the few places where the system balance does discourage certain builds a little too much. I might give it some sort of scaling mechanic for higher refresh games...

The worst case scenario in a physical conflict is death (or being uncouncious) - that doesn't mean an arm wrestling match isn't a physical conflict.

The worst case scenario in a social conflict is typically social alienation - that doesn't mean a mild debate isn't a social conflict.

The worst case scenario in a mental conflict is madness - that doesn't mean a game of wits isn't a mental conflict.

Think outside the box a little bit. All conflicts fall into one of these three categories - it's generally just a matter of who concedes first.

I once again find myself wondering what's so hard about the concept that players aren't going to build characters based solely on "What gets me the most bonuses?"

The thing about all of the powers in the game is that they have to make sense. Players are going to build based on character concept, and the vast, vast majority of them simply do not support A Few Seconds Ahead in a logical way.

No powers are mandatory. There's plenty of better ways to get similar or better effects than AFSA for any number of builds.

I agree with you. For the most part, arguing over game balance in FATE is kind of like arguing the correct pronunciation of ketchup. The result is going to be more or less the same no matter who's right. Making a min-maxed character is kind of boring any-ways, it's way more interesting to write realistic and interesting characters here. My general rule in Fate is - does this seem realistic to the story? If yes, then find the rules for it. If not, suggest something that is.

I think we're mainly comparing apples to oranges here anyways. This is a power, not a stunt. Powers come with a hidden -2 tax attached, plus in this case I'd say an aspect would be required as well. I'd say compare this to other powers, like refinements and such.

To be fair, stunts seem a bit underpowered compared to powers. It's one thing that always irked me about the system.

Really depends, most places where an electronic lock is used also defaults to locked status if there's any malfunction (such as power outage etc), so hexing should probably not open it; on the other hand Hexing can also just cause something to act wierdly rather than stop working (See the GPS-incident), so it might... I'd saythat if allowed, it'd definitely cost a FP though, as an invoke of High Concept...

Err. hexing is an active skill. You don't need to spend fatepoints to do it, any more than you need to spend fatepoints to cast spells. It could theoretically be done as a declaration though, depending on how generous your GM wants to be about it.

I think hexing an electronic lock would realistically have a 50/50 chance of working. GMs call. The player could declare the lock is hexed open if the GM allows it, or he can try to hex it into opening, in which case I'd personally allow it instead of a lock picking check. Beyond that? It'd work if the narrator wants it to work.