I think people are misconstruing my problem (which I might not have been clear enough about). I'm less concerned with the potential to kill lots of opponents in the same zone or even about damage (mostly), since I am not changing the Weapon ratings. Folks who can pull Power 5+ are still hitting hard. My problem is with the ability to hit unfailingly. Simply, defenses do not scale to how "to hit" rolls scale for wizards, if you include control bonuses. Even magical defenses, like the +5 block your average wizard will throw up during a fight are practically useless against someone with some refinement and good foci who has a base +9 to hit you. Similarly, that individual is going to have any easy time hitting anything with less than Superb Athletics and Mythic Speed. I don't feel like this situation reflects the books at all, where magical shields are shown to be very effective and fast monsters are shown to be tough to target. Most wizards are going to have +4 or +5 Discipline to begin with, so they are already expert marksmen. Giving them at least a +2 bonus to hit on top of this makes them nigh-unstoppable, particularly since they are hitting with Weapon 4+ attacks.

I don't feel that addressing that "nerfs" wizards. They are still throwing around attacks with a Weapon rating that outstrips anything less than a tank or a demon with Claws and Mythic Strength and their magic gives them unparalleled flexibility. A monster's claws are good for one thing, a Wizard can do /ANYTHING/ given time and prep. I just don't think they need a "to hit" bonus and the attendant extra damage this gives them, ON TOP of these advantages.

And, as I said, my concern is less about my PCs power and more about their enemies. The PCs are losing a couple points of stress in damage and are missing a little bit more. One tough NPC in my current major plotline is going from a +8 to hit to a +4, meaning that the PCs shields and dodge rolls may actually save them from his Weapon:8 attacks (I calculated that, if they didn't get a shield up in time and rolled badly on their dodge, they could potentially take 20 shifts of damage from one of his attacks).

Hey, if you are willing, I would like to hear more about these!

1) Allowing a free tag on an aspect to be a compel instead of an invoke.
2) Limiting non-free aspect invocations to one per context (personal, scene, zone, etc).
3) The entire social combat system, which I'm going to use for a trial in my Dresden Files game.

#1 is simple, if you do a Declaration, Maneuver, or inflict a Consequence that gives you a free tag on the attendant aspect, you can use it to compel the subject instead of just getting the invoke bonuses. I like this especially for Consequences, because it allows for situations like using a free tag to compel someone to stay put after you put a "Broken Leg" consequence on them.

#2 just disallows invoking multiple aspects in the same context for the same roll. So, you can't invoke two of your personal aspect but you could invoke one of your personal aspects, a scene aspect, and an aspect on the zone. This helps to keep potential roll results down.

#3 is a bit involved to explain at length, but in a nutshell it involves using abstract zone maps and often abstract participants to handle conflict resolution. Players on the board can be individual characters, groups of characters (with composite scores), or abstract concepts or variables.

So, for example, in the trial I am running there is a line of six zones: three guilty, three undecided, and three innocent. There are three participants on the map: prosecutor, defender, and jury. Each stage of the trial is an exchange (opening statement, each witness, closing statement) during which the lawyers affect the position of the jury, trying to "move" them in to the position they want. The final position will determine the verdict and how long it takes to render (all the way at the guilty end will get you a guilt verdict in an afternoon, in the first innocent box will get you a not guilty verdict in a few days). I'm keeping it simple because this is my first go at it, but I could also have the witnesses on the map, with their guilt or innocence showing the jury's opinion of their trustworthiness.

Another example I loved was on one of the Diaspora boards and involved a target-shaped map with KILL at the center and FOILED in the outer ring to do an assassination. The target and assassin are on the map as are the variables Secrecy, Means, and Opportunity. Each participants wants to get the other as well as two of the variables into the appropriate position. If the assassin, secrecy, and means are in FOILED, the assassin's cover is blown and his tools are discovered or captured. If the target, means, and opportunity are in KILL, the target is taken out, but not secretly (the assassin saw their chance and took it, damn subtlty!).

Basically, the neat thing is that you can map anything with it and, if you do it right, will have a story to tell from the final positions on the map and the time increments are up to you, so you could map a political campaign or other long timescale occurrence as easily as a seduction or conversation over drinks.

Due to control bonuses from specialization and foci, it seems like magical attacks are disproportionately powerful compared to any other venue. Bonuses "to hit" are fairly rare in the system, except with magical practitioners. This gets to a point where a very powerful wizard's attacks are nearly impossible to dodge because of the control bonus on top of their Discipline when they cast. I am running a game with serious heavy-hitters on the NPC side and, as I was building the bad guys, became concerned at their damage potential.

My initial idea was to change it so that Weapon rating for spells took two shifts instead of one, like Armor. However, this hurt the PCs more than it did the powerful NPCs and also didn't address the "to hit" problem. What I ended up doing was house-ruling that the Control bonuses only applied to the roll for the purpose of controlling the Power summoned, but not for seeing if it hit. This retains the benefit of control bonuses in allowing you to successfully channel large amounts of power without it also making you hyper-accurate (and, thus, adding even /more/ damage from additional shifts). It also brings shields back to a level of effectiveness that, I feel, better parallels the books and closes the disparity between a powerful mage and a powerful physical combatant.

For example: Bob calls forth 7 shifts of Power and gets +4 for his Discipline roll. He has a +1 specialization control bonus and a +2 focus control bonus, so his Control roll is +7, just enough. However, he only compares the +4 to his target's defense to see if it hits.

-3.  The "templates" just give you ideas for what powers you can take to achieve an effect.  If you want a were-cat wizard, then you buy all the were-abilities, plus evocation, thaumaturgy, and the sight/soulgaze.

A werewolf with a minor talent is just a werewolf who spent one more refresh on some wierdness.

I think the value of templates and why I wouldn't advocate abandoning them altogether is that they promote focus. Some folks will be inclined to treat the Powers section as a grab-bag of abilities to be browsed. Choosing a template or two makes sure you keep in context and only buy stuff that makes sense to your character, rather than being distracted by neat tricks.

Similarly, a werewolf developing a minor talent (taking on a second template) should be a major event with a narrative explanation, rather than just manifesting because they have refresh to spend.

1. It's my understanding that declarations take no time in game, but require a skill check.  But then, so do manuevers, which consume your action in combat.  So if I'm playing a char with the Martial Artist stunt (although the stunt isn't required I believe), why would I use manuevers instead of declarations.  Is it as simple as, from a mechanics and rp standpoint, I can only declare one aspect about an opponent's fighting style?  This seems to make sense to me...after one declaration on an opponent, my char now has to manuever to get those aspects (and free tags)?

Depends on the type of Declaration. If you are casing a building with Burglary, it certainly takes time. If you are remembering that this sort of Faerie is driven off by the smoke of burning yew, that's not going to take any time. Since, as you note, Declaration have the potential to do the same thing Maneuvers do only faster and with indefinite duration, GMs should generally be a bit harsher when assigning difficulties for them and should often require taking an action. If you want to declare the Aspect FAVORS HIS RIGHT KNEE, I'm going to require you spend an exchange watching him move. Further, the difficulty is going to be +6 unless there is some reason this is cool or relevant, like referencing two scenes ago when he told you about a motorcycle crash a few days prior.

This is part of what the group City Creation step is about: getting everybody on the same page as to what sort of game they want to play. Folks can have some ideas, but should walk into this stage with the willingness to tweak, change, or abandon these initial concepts to fit what everyone decides the game and setting are going to be about. Anyone who is resistant this early in is going to be a pain in the ass later and probably shouldn't play. Not with a "you suck, go away" but a "obviously, the sort of game we are running this time doesn't interest you, maybe next time". I've had a lot of games ruined because I kept pandering to someone who had a divergent (often self-centered) idea of what the game should be and I think it's easier on everyone if you just nip it in the bud early on.

Page 326 makes reference to Special-Effect Attacks, too, which I allow in Evocation. Basically, the power goes towards placing an Aspect on the target, and they also take stress based on the attack roll. One of my players has a spirit attack rote that puts a KNOCKED ON ASS aspect on the target in lieu of the Weapon rating and only does stress if she gets shifts on the attack roll.

That's why you make a simple Declaration:  Cather & Bag 

Dude. You /don't/ want the GM compelling /that/ aspect.