I want to go back to the tazer field and confining someone with magic to get them killed. I think that if it doesn't count as a breaking of the First Law, any wizard who keeps someone around who is willing to kill will be able to kill far too easily. I would also say that the wizards will is far to involved in the taking of the life not to be tainted.

The reason the ward swords don't count is the will to create the enchantment on the sword is far, far removed from the will used to do the killing. Additionally, the swords don't do magical damage, as far as we know,  and are enchanted only to cut through enchantments and don't do extra damage to flesh. The magic of the sword isn't involved in the kill--removing the enchanting will by another degree.

I am thinking, on the laws, that the scale to be used is how much is the attacker's free will being used to magically remove the defender's free will.

In the DFRPG system you choose the method of taking somebody out.  You don't have to kill them.  Why not just knock them out?  If I thought for a second that my tazer spell was being used to kill, I would not use it.  That's the kind of spell you use to buy some time possibly when you want to negotiate or you just need to stop them from doing something?  if a caster's life is in danger and he stops somebody in a way that only prevents them from further hurting, how does that break any laws? 

The wording is off, it shouldn't be a block versus endurance, its a block, against some action, which is opposed by endurance. Which means that the block keeps X from happening, but you can overcome the block by means of your high endurance.

So for example you can have two blocks that do the same thing be opposed by different skills.

A block against movement opposed by athletics.
A block against movement opposed by might.

In the first block you are doing something like dodging past whatever is blocking you, as long as its athletic.

On the second block you are using your brute strength to bypass the block, like maybe the block manifests as chains which bind you in place, and you go all hulk smash on the chains and then proceed to move.

So a block against movement prevents you from doing anything physical even a wizard casting spells?

IMHO, when Harry uses soulfire he doesn't think at all like Michael would. 

It was all about trying to get the two spells to be a single rote.  If I could make the maneuver of disarming an attack that would make it a single attack rote. if it doesn't work at all in that way then that's fine.  Thanks.

Ok, so based on some discussions I'm trying to understand this.  dlw32 and I had talked and we're still confused.  There are two possible situations that each seem to need to be treated as separate spells.  The reason this matters is because they would be two different rotes I think.

Spell a.  Electromagnetically pull a metallic object out of a person's hand would be done as a maneuver of something like disarmed.  I think this works well.

Spell b.  If you wanted to take that same metallic object and throw it at the person to hurt them, that would be an attack. 

They can't be the same rote right?

It explicitly is, though. See YS p. 209.

It could (and should) be assumed that if you only beat them by enough to get a Fragile Aspect, you just managed to knock the weapon aside and really messed up their grip, or knocked it down precisely at their feet, or something else quick and easy to recover from, depriving them of it's use only very briefly indeed. Now if you get it as a Sticky Aspect, then you can take it away from them and use it yourself, and them taking it back requires a Maneuver on their part to remove the Aspect and get it back.

Does that make more sense?

What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of the book, but what if you just want to take the person's weapon and not have to worry about a fragile aspect?  it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat.  Time might be better spent actually doing damage.  Sorry if I'm missing something basic... 

As described, that would technically be a Maneuver, not an Attack. Other than that, looks good.

From your pespective, could you explain what you mean by it's technically a Maneuver?  what would that mean and how would that play out in combat? 

Consider that the basic effect of most thaumaturgy spells is stronger than the equivalently powered version of the evocation spell.  Thaumaturgic wards can block and reflect for the same cost it takes evocation to block, and thaumaturgy can veil entire buildings for the same cost evocation can veil a single person.  There are many more cases where thaumaturgy is just flat out stronger than evocation, and letting a player use those at evocation speeds, without costing refresh, just breaks stuff.

Why would it cost the same to block and reflect with thaum as it would to block in evocation?  You still have to beat a target value don't you?