Hey everyone,

So, I was reading through the descriptions for Incite Emotion and am perplexed on how to understand the rules when a character takes Incite Emotion (Range) and then takes Incite Emotion (Lasting Emotion). I shall list the RAW for each and bold the areas that are important.

Emotion-Touch. If you can touch someone, you can make him feel something. You’re able to do maneuvers at +2 to your roll (using Intimidation for anger or fear and Deceit for every other emotion) that force an emotion on a target (as a temporary aspect), so long as you’re in the same zone as he is and you can physically touch him. The victim defends with his Discipline. You may be able to prevent the victim from taking other actions as well if you do this as a block (page 210) instead of as a maneuver.

Ok, so that is what you get from basic Incite Emotion, but lets take a look at what happens when you add the upgrade to Range.

You may use this ability on targets up to one zone away without touching them.

Alright, so now you can use your Emotion-Touch ability at Range, ok, no conflict here, but let's add Lasting Emotion to the equation.

If you increase the refresh cost of this ability by 1, you gain the ability to do Emotion-Touch as a mental attack instead of a mere maneuver or block. If such an attack hits, you gain a +2 stress bonus on a successful hit (as though it were Weapon:2), increasing the chances of inflicting a mental consequence (and thus, a more lasting emotional state). The victim defends with his Discipline.

So, from my understanding it seems you can use this ability as an attack from ranged if you take the Range and Lasting Upgrade.

Let me know if I am understanding these rules correctly.  Thanks!

That was only in the most recent couple decades.  He'd had centuries to establish his dominance with his daughters (and get his bluff in) before he was crippled.  Only Thomas and Inari came of age in that time; Thomas was protected by Papa Wraiths heterosexual preferences, and Inari was freed of the Wampire world before it became an issue. 

Sorry, I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.

Hey everyone,

It has been a little while since I posted a question, but recently I got to think a little more about mental attacks, the variety of mental attacks, and the targets of these types of attacks.

Question #1: Are White Court Vampires immune to attempts by other White Court Vampire uses of their Invoke Emotion ability? This may have been covered in the books, but I can't seem to recall if this was ever stated explicitly.

Question #2. Would a zombie (undead creation) be immune to the mental attacks of a White Court Vampire? This to me makes sense if they are immune, since they are just animated and are performing actions as directed by the creator thus having no real motivations or mind.

Question #3: Would constructs be immune to the mental attacks of a White Court Vampire? This seems like the would be immune much to the same as my thoughts on question #2.

What does everyone else think? Do I have it right?

Thanks in advance! 

Hey Haru,

I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. If someone does a maneuver against you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you succeed, the maneuver fails and doesn't create an aspect. You do not get the aspect instead of your attacker.

I was referring to this example from the Your Story:

During his turn, the perp tries to use Athletics to remove the aspect (get himself out of the corner); he makes his roll and gets a Fair  (+2). Murphy doesn’t want that to happen, so she rolls Fists as a defense to keep the thug there. She gets a Superb, and the aspect remains.

Hey everyone,

So, I was checking to make sure I understood this maneuver was being used correctly and if I handled it based on the most common interpretation of the rules.

Wizard casts an Earth Evocation that traps the target's feet and this is a rote with 3 Power behind it and generates the aspect "Immobilized". He casts the spell and rolls a 9 for the Discipline spell to aim at the target.

The target rolls their Athletics to avoid being trapped (Fair +2) and gets a 3, which in a tie it becomes a temporary aspect and the target has the aspect "Immobilized".

First question, is "Immobilized" a valid maneuver? This seems like a Block to me.
Second question, since this rote was used on concrete, would it be safe to assume that the target can break free?
Third question, if you defend a maneuver does that use your action for your turn next round? I think it does since this would not qualify as a free action based on the description.

Hey everyone,

So, I have a player that has an Item of Power that grants him Sponsored Magic (-4). The Sponsor is a Goddess of Chaos, Bad Luck (Eris from Greek Mythology) and the character states that with this item he can cast any element of magic from thaumaturgy and evocation that he wants so long as it is related to the Sponsored Magic Theme. From my understanding, the Sponsored Magic only grants 1 type of Element and 1 type of Thaumaturgy much like if the character had taken Channeling and Ritual, but it has the benefit of boosting other/similar types of magic should you have the ability to use them. Who is right or how do you interpret the rules?

Thanks in advance! 

Hey everyone,

From my understanding, there is a balance of power between the Summer Court and the Winter Court, but I was just wondering some suggestions on how to upset this balance. One way I know for sure is provided from the books, but that was just one instance and have never really discovered any other sources. What have you used or would you use to stir things up between the courts?

Thanks in advance!

Hey Haru,

Thanks for your analysis that confirms what I was suspecting as well. As for the "Wind Barrier" yeah, I was having trouble on deciding either Block or Maneuver myself since it could go either way.

You say a number of times "I ruled that he takes a consequence", but that's for the player to decide.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there, he wanted to take the consequences, I just decided what they were.

Doesn't work. A consequence is something lasting. It's what happens as an injury from the fire, it isn't the fire itself. As a severe consequence, you could have "third degree burns", but you are not "on fire" as a consequence. You could do a maneuver to create the "on fire" aspect on someone, but that's something else. Again, this cost the WK his action, which lead to his defeat.

Yeah, I also realized my blunder there and that did cause him to lose his action.

Why did the WK attack the Wizard?

He was attacking him because he had discovered too much about the mystery and his plans were to actually just straight up kill him.