Blast, I thought my victory was secure!  Also, I apologize in advance for my love of arguing.

On "Access:"

"White Court vampires suffer injury from True expressions of pure, selfless emotions .... This effect includes physical objects related to that emotional energy (some White Court vampires have suffered grave injury from handling a wedding ring or a rose exchanged between lovers)." (OW90-91)

Now, I'm aware of that "some" in there, and how narrow a field it might circumscribe.  But you would need to define "wedding ring" nearly out of existence to make it as rare as one of THE nails on THE Cross.  For a +0 to stick, only "one or two people in the entire world" even have access to the Catch.  Those are some very special wedding rings.

If it sounds like I'm being too literal on the "one or two people" thing, the comparative example in the book is a Sword of the Cross.  The next step down, a +1 Catch, is accessible only to "a very rare class of people" -- as rare as True Magic.  Moreover, the Raith Catch isn't limited to wedding rings:  There are roses in there too, and framed pictures, and jewelry, and just about anything else exchanged by people in True Love (a--wait for it--"very rare class of people"), as well as expressions of True Love, whatever that means. ("Lord Raith, never bring a gun to... A POETRY FIGHT!")

Extrapolating to fear/True Courage: Medals and many other relics of war would have to count for True Courage vs Malvora, or I just don't understand the concept of True Courage.  Raiding a museum or military family's suburban home, while ghoulish and deplorable and probably a lot of fun to roleplay, remains just a touch easier than pilfering Esperaccius from a Knight of the Cross.

As for weaponizing these trinkets, well, most of them are made of metal, and metallic things make excellent weapons.  Sure, I agree that melting a wedding ring into a bullet would probably kill the love (though it evidently doesn't hurt the hereditariness of silver), so just propel it with magic.  This isn't rocket science (...but it could be!)  Anyway, I grant that roses might take some doing (I wonder if True Love dissolves in liquid nitrogen...), but, where there's a wizard, there's a way.

On "Knowledge:"

The "which House are you" WCV stranger is hardly the norm.  It's not like the White Court hides who they are; they're nobility.  They're protected by the Accords.  The one's we've met go by their House surnames.  Sure, if you meet one in an alley in a strange city, you might not know.  But an established House of the White Court is not going to be incognito, because they're too busy being schemers and politickers nonpareil.  Just watch whether their dinner is sighing, screaming, seething or sobbing, and you're set.  This isn't necessarily easy, or it would be a +2.  But neither does it compare with requiring intimate knowledge of the unique circumstances and two-millenia backstory of an unprecedented, secretive and awesomely powerful semi-demigod.

Edit: A last final bit. If the system is getting in the way of your fun or the story then screw what the book says. If you (and your table) want the WCV catch to be worth +2 then make it worth +2. However really make it worth +2. Don't just give someone the refresh bonus and then forget all about the catch. Make it that much more important to the game.

Oh -- I should be more clear:  We've already made the change, and a few others, mostly to balance our Sorceress and WCVirgin (who, given her extra refresh in Incite Emotion upgrades and our chronicle's focus on social/political drama, makes her almost as narratively powerful as a full WCV).  I'm just arguing that the rules as written can't possibly result in a +0 catch for a WCV, requiring some fudging. 

Hmm. Apologies for resurrecting an old debate (I seem to do that a lot with the WCVs).  But wherever the line has been drawn in the sand, I think we can agree that the Catch rules do not comport with the Catch value given for WCVs.  (As for weaponizing the Catch:  Grapeshot + Taj Mahal pebbles = Pure. Awesome.)

And a +0 Catch... that's harsh.  That's "Sword of the Cross that no one knows about" harsh.  No, I'm squarely in the "WCV catch = +2" camp.

Could someone please help me understand why WCVs get a +0 Catch?  By my math, it should be at least +2.  Following the first three bullets on YW185:

• [+0] Focused vs. General -- Protects against all physical attacks, so no +2 bonus here.
• [+1] Access to Catch -- Even a +1 is pretty cynical, implying that "True Love" is comparable to True Magic (something "only a rare class of people in the world have").  It's certainly not comparable to a Sword of the Cross, something "only one or two people in the world have access to or could produce."
• [+1] Knowledge of Catch -- At the very least, "access to specific research material that could be restricted (like a wizard's library)" should turn up the general "WCVs are hurt by the opposite of their flavor-of-choice."  This is hardly a secret on the same level as Nicodemus' noose.

Black Court Vampires add up to +4 by the same math.  (The examples given at OW75 give them a Catch of +3, but only because their Toughness powers top out at -4 and you can't Catch yourself to lower than -1.  The same argument doesn't fly with the WCVs, though, as the Raiths starting at OW207 still have +0 Catches.)

Lastly, WCVs are mechanically outshone by evokers and the faithful.  I think they could use a little bump in refresh provided by upping the value of their Catch.

For new players just setting out to design their first characters, 25 skills is a lot to take in (especially considering all of the trappings associated with them).  I’ve been working on a way to make the available skills a little easier to grok.

I’ve noticed is that skills tend to group by triplets quite easily.  So, with a few repetitions, I drew up this rough categorization of triplets covering all 25 skills.  I am sure I’ve overlooked several things, so please offer your comments – it will greatly help my understanding of how the skills can be used, and in turn help my players.  If others find this useful, I will keep this first post updated with any changes.

Brute Physical: Athletics, Endurance, Might
Agile Physical: Athletics, Driving, Stealth
Physical Attacks: Fists, Guns, Weapons
Physical Defense: Athletics, Fists, Weapons

Social Attacks: Deceit, Intimidation, Rapport
Social Defense: Discipline, Empathy, Rapport

Stress Tracks: Conviction, Endurance, Presence

Magic Know-How:  Conviction, Discipline, Lore
Mundane Knowledge Gathering: Contacts, Investigation, Scholarship
Perception: Alertness, Empathy, Lore

Acquisitions: Contacts, Craftsmanship, Resources
Covert Ops: Burglary, Deceit, Stealth
Character-Defining*: Performance, Presence, Survival

* As is always the case with brute-force categorizations like the above, this is my “miscellaneous” category.  Originally containing only Performance and Survival, I noticed both of those skills seemed like they’d go largely ignored except by characters whose concepts strongly suggested them.  Presence only seemed to fit that bill when I reread its description -- Presence is a lot narrower than I initially thought, more of a "leadership" skill than a social skill, so I added it here to emphasize that (i.e. players might be disappointed if they took Presence only to discover they really meant to take Rapport).

So, there we have it.  Do any of those triplets grate on you as missing something, having fuzzy edges, or having one skill too few/too many?  On the last point, I was considering adding Presence to Social Attacks, but YW215 (directly under the picture of Harry demonstrating that Chivalry Is Not Dead, Dammit) suggests otherwise: the main text mentions the three “main” social attack skills as above.  And, though the marginalia to the right argues against using Discipline as a social defense like I've done, it does strike me as the go-to defense for your garden-variety Intimidation attack.

Thanks in advance for your input!

Ack, I feel bad for posting and then not checking back for several days -- thank you all for you help, I think I've got this down in that it works pretty intuitively, once the more stringently-written interaction requirement is relaxed.

I've got an idea to bring Kincaid and his Resources in line, but you've got a big group and it requires a bit of focus on him for awhile.  So you may want to spread the following out over a series of unrelated scenarios, to keep your players from getting bored.

In dealing with One-Man-Army, I think you're too focused on the rules, when you forget that you hold the whole freaking world in the palm of your hands (literally, if you write your scenario notes in a palm-sized notebook).  Be fair, but firm.  The things he's doing CANNOT be done without difficulty, without consequence, but those consequences should be tense, interesting and fun.

So let's shake things up. 

Question: What's the FBI/NSA/ATF/CIA going to think when they hear of a guy running around buying up depleted uranium shells by the bushel and ordering weekly deliveries of military-grade body armor?  Time to answer that, while blindsiding the hell out of all your players at the same time. (What FUN we GMs get to have!)

Step One: Have a terrorist attack happen nearby, completely removed from whatever story you're running.  Mention it a few times, whenever you're in a scene with CNN playing in the background.  Throw in some details that wouldn't be out of place in a real-world act of terrorism, but that are actually red herrings designed to make your players think there's "just another monster" behind this one.  Get them excited about a potential showdown waiting in the wings.

Step Two: One-Man-Army hears an odd click on his phone the next time he uses it.  He notices the same car has been parked outside his house each night (it hustles away if he approaches; cops intercede if he pursues).  Make him think the government is watching him.  Try to get him super-paranoid about being a suspect in the terrorist investigation, but try to keep him away from any "direct" confrontations, as that will make Step Three a mite difficult. 

Step Three: Now, run a scenario involving a paranoid-schizophrenic who raves about vague things like "watchers in the wings" and "listeners on the line".  At some point, make a production of revealing that the schizophrenic was in the bar when the coin was passed around: This could be the reveal that anyone who touches the coin, gets Tarsiel's shadow.  It could wake up simultaneously in all their minds, somewhere along the way.  The point of all this is to get One-Man-Army to "see through" your "cleverly constructed" mystery, to make him doubly-certain that this is what it's all about: "The car, the clicks, they aren't real!  Of course, it's been Tarsiel this whole time! Well, I'm stronger than that nut in the bar! Screw you, Tarsiel, I'm not falling for it!"

Step Four: Once One-Man-Army is merrily on his way back to being his old self, convinced that the constant watchers and clicks and cars are Tarsiel's influence, he'll soon start requisitioning more equipment (and if he doesn't, well, problem solved!).  Don't change your tone on this; be as reluctant as always, but eventually give in.  It's Christmas in Kandahar, hurray!

Then he gets a phone call.

It's his <insert family/friend>.  The FBI has been asking questions.  There's a knock at the door, while he's still on the phone. (Why? Why else? FUN!) It's an FBI agent.  And at such an inopportune time, too, what with the plutonium warhead on the coffee table and a Blackhawk helicopter in the garage.  Practice your aggressive, pointed questions beforehand, and lean HARD on social compels to trip him up.  Make him feel like the whole weight of the US government is about to rain holy hell on his head, Waco-style, if they find a hint of contraband anywhere near him.  It dawns on him: This is the real fight, the real challenge, and it's one that, despite all of his easy-earned weaponry, he's hopelessly ill-equipped to fight (what sweet, sweet irony).  It wasn't Tarsiel at all!  In fact, Tarsiel is taunting him about this, engaging in a simultaneous mental contest, trying to trip him up in his social contest with the FBI Agent; after all, if he's caught, who else will be able to get him out of federal custody?  You could even give Tarsiel's shadow and/or the FBI agent to other players to roleplay (I do this with a "How To Host A Murder"-style character card, detailing motivations, what the NPC knows, typical reactions and the like).

If you're feeling really artful, slap down a scene aspect: "JUST BECAUSE I'M PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN THEY AREN'T REALLY AFTER ME!"  If you're feeling REALLY artful, make this a direct quote of something the schizophrenic said, or painted on the walls in blood as he committed suicide (you want it to stick in their minds), way back before they had any idea of its significance.

If this doesn't make One-Man-Army more careful about both the Fallen AND requisitioning stray nukes, your next step is to do exactly what you promised: Rain the entire might of the US government down on his head, and let the cards fall as they may.  He did, after all, ask for it!

To invoke an aspect on yourself, you need to explain how that aspect is relevant.  Clear as clear can be.

When invoking aspects on others (whether characters or scenes/zones/locations/cities/etc), the rules apply two additional requirements: Interaction and Access.  They emphasize these two requirements several times, so clearly they intend for them to be real, additional requirements to the standard rule for invoking aspects on yourself. 

The latter one, Access, seems to mean only that your character must have either created it through a maneuver/declaration/consequence, or discovered it through a guess/assessment (i.e. "your character" must have access to (knowledge of) that aspect, whatever your player happens to know).

It's the Interaction requirement that I don't get, because it seems either flatly contradictory, or completely redundant given the need to explain relevancy already.  The book attempts to illustrate these two requirements using "Ill-Met By Candlelight" (such a great aspect), presenting three examples:

• Stealth: Candles are dim, so sneaking is easy.
• Setting Things On Fire: Candles. Fire. 2+2=4.
• Triggering Unfortunate Encounters: "Ill met, indeed!" is the only guidance we get here.

Now, the first two I understand: You sneak through shadows, or tip over candles -- Interaction.  But it's the third one, and countless other similar examples of Invoking for Effect, that show no interaction whatsoever.  How does one satisfy the interaction requirement while Invoking for Effect on the third example, triggering some unfortunate encounter?  Does it work only if he calls someone on his cellphone, or otherwise "interacts" with the unfortunate encounter in some way?  I saw a combat example in which someone Invoked a villain's "Crushed Ribcage" consequence from across the room to make him stumble during his escape; no interaction there, either.  Ditto on invoking "Building on Fire" to make a ceiling collapse and block an exit -- I can't even imagine how you'd interact with that aspect.

So, what is this "Interaction" requirement, and what does it require?