Honestly, this is one of those things that could be argued either way. If a circle-threshold would be broken simply by picking up a stick, then it wouldn't be a very valid defense. Vampires, fae, and the like, aren't always swift to adapt, but they aren't STUPID. Hell, just kicking dirt across it would do it under that model.

I think you have to look at it the same way you might look at some of the weird lawbreaker corner cases, such as levitating an anvil over someone and then conveniently letting go of the enchantment. You can (and people have) argue both for and against that being a violation.

Similarly, you could build a solid argument that crossing a threshold -- circle or otherwise -- requires a Mortal act of will.

My first inclination is to treat any weapon wielded by a supernatural as an extension of them for the purposes of a circle, but any secondary effects aren't their problem. So they can pick up a 2x4, but they can't swing it into the circle. They can, however, start taking out supports on the building, which is free to drop on them (gravity doesn't require an invitation).

Where this stance gets hazy is that bullets are inherently second order effects.

For this, I'd be forced to conclude that no, the circle wouldn't stop bullets.. But they wouldn't necessarily constitute a circle violation.

Wizard (or mortal, since they can do it too) gets shot, and if they go flying over the circle (or simply bleed all over it), THAT breaks it.

If they're stoic(or decently armored) enough to survive the shots, well, they've still got a circle. For what that's worth. Dudeness still has a gun, and presumably more shots.

You've bought time. Use it wisely.

[edit]

I started to edit to clarify that for the whole 'swinging a stick' angle it's not that the circle blocks the stick, it's that they can't decide to violate the circle that way. That led me to have the thought that we needed to look more closely at the 'act of will' aspect.

So I just went and looked at Turn Coat, and ... well, well. I have to reverse my stance pretty fully with regards to second order effects.

“They’re spirit beings,” I said. “As long as the circle’s here, they’re staying outside it.”

“Couldn’t they just scuff dirt on it or something?”

I shook my head. “Breaking the circle isn’t just a physical process. It’s an act of choice, of will—and these things don’t have that.”

From where I sit, that kind of settles the matter, as long as we're taking current Word of God as valid on the matter.

Someone without mortal will cannot simply choose to take an action that would violate a threshold... And that would include firearms.

And if they can break down a threshold, they're probably not going to play with guns... unless they find it amusing, anyway.

Ok. If this is the case, why stat them monsters with aspects?

An item of note, even if they don't happen have any fate points on hand to invoke their own aspects, it's always possible for someone (such as a PC) to tag an aspect on them, once it's been discovered through Assessment.

Has anyone considered focusing on the enchanted item framework for consumable blocks/armor/etc?

I think the prince of persia 'redo' concept could just as easily be worked using rationed per-exchange effects as any spellcasting or aspect triggering; during actual play the Prince generally only rewound brief moments of battle.

It'd also do a lot to put a lid on some potential abuses if the character only has so much chrono-juice per session to work with.

You could even incorporate Lawbreaker [6th] into, say, the Lore for the enchanted items.


That notion aside, I giggle at the idea of having to rig up all seven aspects tied to time manip. That's a fun project.

To me, it really seems like the intent really is that the Discipline role serves two completely distinct purposes. One is to control the power, the other is for targeting. The Backlash option to maintain power is only for the power; targeting should be unaffected.

Just because the SPELL works as intended doesn't mean you AIMED it all that well; in fact I'd argue that the stress of botching the control would speak poorly of the wizard's ability to direct it as precisely as they intended.

Besides, the offered purpose of backlash is not to ensure the spell WORKS correctly so much as to ensure you don't screw over nearby people or environment.

The quasi-retroactive facet is an important one, yeah, that a lot of players of other systems might not intuit on their own. Is that clearly implied anywhere in the new source text?

I think there might be some confusion between two applications of a Taser. In 'Drive Stun' mode, it's a pain-oriented deterrent/disruption. In standard distance use, the electrodes disrupt the nervous system directly, without a corresponding (but still some) degree of pain. If you're within the mass tolerance of the charge and the electrodes land securely, it isn't 'difficult' to act. It's simply impossible.

I think a block is just... insufficient, unless you set its difficulty so high it's effectively impossible to break.

Well, my take on the soul-staining aspect of the Laws is kinda dependent on the victim actually HAVING free will. *shrug* Every game is a different game, yeah?

My approach would be, if the target didn't REALLY have free will but the spellcaster believed it, just an aspect shift. "Believes He's A Lawbreaker", or somesuch.

Personally, I think the armor doubling thing is just an overcomplication, but everyone's game is their game. :)