A tag is nothing more than a free invoke, usable once. Once it's been tagged, you may invoke it as normal.

In you example, someone tags your broken leg aspect, and either gets a +2 or a reroll against you. Since it's a tag, no Fate Point was spent, so no FP changes hands. If someone did it to you a second time, that would cost them a FP, which would be given to you!

-EF

Ok, I thought I had a handle on this, but now I'm not so sure. I thought that the target never received a FP from a normal tag/invoke, and that the FP only changed hands during an invoke-for-effect. Reading back through the rules, it looks like the target does receive a FP from a regular invoke. Interesting.

Yes, it might be more of Alertness than Investigation, but that does not change the situation. I think the thing that annoys me is the fact that the bucket automatically is there after the player says he is making an attempt to roll use his skill for the Declaration – now it is just a matter of finding it. It is no longer a question of whether there is a bucket or not – the question rather becomes a one of whether the character can find it or not.

If it helps your suspension of disbelief, this isn't exactly how declarations work. It isn't a case of 1) player makes declaration, 2) bucket is introduced into the scene 3) player rolls skill to find it. That's more like an assessment (player rolls to discover a previously decided-on in-game fact, even if the player is only guessing that such an aspect exists). This is what makes declarations so different from traditional search rolls - if the player fails the roll when making a declaration, the fact is not true. Thus, if the player doesn't find the bucket with a declaration, it's literally because there is no bucket. The roll is to establish whether or not the statement is true, not whether or not the player notices the subject of the statement. Declarations happen more at the narrative level of play, rather than the in-character level, even though they act a lot like in-character actions such as searching.

Of course, a player could try instead to make an assessment, saying "there's probably a bucket around here because we saw the janitor cleaning up," and it would be almost exactly the same mechanical process, rolling the skill to find the bucket. But in an assessment situation, the GM has authority over deciding whether or not there's a bucket to find, while a declaration gives the player a chance to control the narrative, subject of course to the GM's approval via difficulty-setting or outright overruling.

My opinion is that social combat and physical combat shouldn't occur at the same time. However, the rationale behind my position differs from the rationale ways and means presents for why some prefer to separate social and physical combat.

According to some peoples interpretation of social stress is entirely external too a person as it represents how other people view them.  According to these people attempts to use intimidation to scare some one would not be social combat and attempts to persuade someone to back down from a fight would not be social combat (perhaps the only uses social combat has ever been put to in my campaign).

I don't believe that social stress is entirely external to a person, it represents not only how others view a person but how a person feels about how others view him. For example, a social consequence could be "Tarnished Reputation," which is entirely external, or it could be "Shamed," which conveys a change in the subject's thoughts or behavior based on how others view him. Sometimes social consequences are like "mental lite," damage to a character's self-esteem or ego that isn't quite potent enough to be mental stress. Social combat is a lot more nebulous than physical combat, in terms of duration, content and consequences, which is part of why I think the two should be kept separate.

Whether a situation becomes a social combat is, for me, entirely dependent on whether a physical fight is taking place. In fact, a character could perform the exact same action, such as trying to intimidate someone, and my answer would be different depending on the context. Is social interaction all that's going on? Social combat. Is it taking place in the context of a physical fight? Count it as a maneuver that can be tagged or invoked for effect.

If this is the cannon interpretation then social combat seems meaningless outside of a people in organisations or politics game and a large number of creatures should get automatic social immunity by simply having completely alien societal norms. If this it the correct interpretation of social combat it seems that for a large number of games mental combat would be far more common than social combat.  Because of those comments I am considering abandoning the social and mental stress tracks and replacing them with a composure and fatigue stress track in my game.    

Am I misinterpreting social combat or is it meant to be only used in a political game?  

To me, social combat can encompass a staggering variety of interpersonal situations. A staredown at the bar with people throwing intimidating glances at each other, an election race between two politicians, a tense business negotiation, a high-society gala with mingling and backstabbing, a frat boy sweet-talking a sorority girl. Honestly, mental combat seems like it has two purposes: as an add-on for physical combat (governed by powers which explicitly allow for its use in physical combat), and for those rare situations where things get really psychologically intense for a character. In contrast, social combat, with its own initiative system and collection of relevant skills, seems equipped to handle all of those situations where physical violence isn't happening.

It's not that I think social and physical combat can't be mixed, I just think the system is more elegant and more balanced if they aren't. Opening up the social stress track during physical combat devalues physical combat skills, and especially abilities like Toughness, if a social character can just ignore those extra stress boxes and target the vulnerable social stress track. On the flip side, keeping the social arena separate gives socially focused characters a chance to shine. Furthermore, adding in another stress track just gets plain messy and confusing. Treating Intimidation attempts (for example) as a maneuver in combat makes for a simple and elegant solution that keeps the focus on the physical combat while still allowing for the social skill to have a potentially huge effect on the combat via an invoke-for-effect.

Anyways, that's what works for my group, YMMV.

The Laws of Magic apply only to mortal spellcasters. Vampire wizardry isn't quite the same thing as what mortals do, same with the Sidhe. Metaphysically speaking, breaking a Law changes you in a small way, on the idea that you are, to a greater or lesser extent, defined by your choices. It's described as staining your soul. No mortal free will? No Lawbreaking.

So to answer your questions, vampires never break Laws when killing using magic or by any other means. Ditto for making thralls.

WCVs are a hazy area, they seem to possess some qualities of both mortals and supernatural creatures. I'm not sure if they should be subject to Lawbreaking.

Using wizardry to feed is a different question altogether. I would allow the use of magic to induce the appropriate emotion for an Emotional Vampire, but I wouldn't let the vampire feed using a spell. I would also rule that magic doesn't affect Hunger, as it already causes mental stress, and it doesn't seem to be an innate physical ability fueled by the Hunger in the same way that Inhuman Recovery is, for example. OW's examples of spellcasting vampires don't have their spellcasting abilities linked to Feeding Dependency, so I'd say this is supported by the books.

sill not even close to a wizard.

Wizards first of all defend against that kind of attack with discipline, which means even if the vampire starts combat with the wizard, he/she will probably not take any consequences and could avoid a maneuver aspect.

Then the wizard could 1 shot this vampire.

So.... not a  very munhkin-y build.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Incite Emotion add +2 to the relevant skill when being used for a maneuver? Combined with the stunt, that puts the Intimidate attack at +9. Even with a Superb Discipline, a wizard's going to have a hell of a time avoiding a maneuver put in place by this vampire. I was under the impression that wizards got ridiculous by layering specializations and focus items to achieve ridiculous control rolls, none of which would apply on the Discipline roll to defend against Incite Emotion.

I'm not too familiar with BioShock either, but I am familiar with the Bouncer version of the Big Daddy. This would be my take on it:

Bouncer
HC: Mechanized Guardian of Rapture
Other Aspects: Bonded to a Little Sister

Skills:
Alertness: Fair (+2)
Athletics: Good (+3)
Craftsmanship: Fair (+2)
Discipline: Fair (+2)
Endurance: Great (+4)
Fists: Great (+4)
Intimidation: Good (+3)
Might: Superb (+5)

Stunts:
Implacable Automaton (Endurance): The Bouncer's mental stress track is determined using its Endurance instead of its Conviction.
Unfeeling Automaton (Endurance): The Bouncer's social stress track is determined using its Endurance instead of its Presence.
No Pain, No Gain (Endurance): The Bouncer has an additional mild physical consequence slot.
Bend and Break (Might): The Bouncer adds two to its Might score when breaking things.

Powers:
Aquatic [-1]
Deadly Drill [-2]: Every Bouncer has a giant drill in place of an arm. This counts as a Weapon:4 that uses the Bouncer's Fists skill.
Hulking Size [-2]
Inhuman Strength [-2]
Supernatural Toughness [-4]
The Catch [+2] is magic/hexing.

Physical OOOOOO(OOOO), Armor:2, +1 mild consequence
Mental OOOO
Social OOOO

Total Refresh Cost: -13

Fair (+2) initiative, attacks at Great (+4) with Weapon:6 drill and Strength, defends at Good (+3), nasty in a grapple with Fantastic (+6) Might and Strength. When breaking things, the combination of Might, Strength, stunt and Size means the Bouncer rolls at Legendary+4 (+12). Metal wall? No problem. Can take a lot of punishment and keep coming, assuming you don't fry its circuitry with magic. Not much use in a social conflict beyond the scare factor (Intimidation is at Superb when size is a factor), but its lack of anything resembling free will makes it slightly tougher to mess with.

I'd probably also throw in some sort of Feeding Dependency based on Adam, although I'm not sure if it would really affect anything beyond Inhuman Strength.

This is one instance where I am going to go against RAW apparently - on the stress track thing.

I am not a hero - at least not anymore. ;P  But if I am dealing with a mental or social consequence, like... "Crushing worry about debt", and I were to get into a fight, I could still be "brusied", "ankle sprained", and "wrenched arm".  Those are three physical consequences on top of a social or mental consequence... and it's /realistic/.

It seems like you're looking at a given set of consequences as an objective measure of a person's fortitude. By this logic, taking a social consequence in lieu of a physical consequence would indeed seem to be nonsensical, because you certainly can still be "bruised," "ankle sprained" and "wrenched arm" on top of having a "crushing worry about debt."

Why stop there, though? In addition to being "bruised," "ankle sprained" and having a "wrenched arm," you could also easily acquire "lacerations" and "heavy burns." That's another two physical consequences, all of which could realistically coexist on a given person. Why should your three existing physical consequences limit your ability to acquire lacerations?

The answer (as I see it), is because consequences aren't an objective measure of your ability to absorb punishment. They're a narrative measure of your character's ability to affect the plot by deciding where and how much the enemy hurts him. Having a consequence slot taken up with "crushing worry about debt" doesn't mean your character can't suffer three or more physical injuries, it just means that the character doesn't have the protagonist-power to keep the opponent from deciding exactly how much injury they want to inflict via a taken-out result. It's not like the character has lost the ability to defend himself (that's represented by skills), the character just doesn't have as much narrative control in the greater context of the story.

So now rather than argue that, I think it would be cool if someone  could get an official Fred word about social conflict during combat.

I would also like, if not an official pronouncement, at least some insight into what the designers intended as far as interaction between different types of conflict are concerned. I hope my post hasn't come off as argumentative, talking this out is helping me develop my own understanding of how consequences work.

I can see it happening though.  In a fight, people's egos are particularly exposed.  A high deceit roll like "I killed your father," would be a wonderful attack.  Sure, it can be a maneuver to place an aspect.  But you could also be socially damaging a character and forcing a consequence like "Enraged" (which, while it can be an aspect is also a rather potent social consequence).

Yes, bullets work very fast.  Much faster than swords.  Much faster than fists.  Much faster than feet.  They're a poor time reference.  Combat exchanges aren't a set time.  They're fluid.

I think we could all come up with a lot of examples that could be conceptualized as both a maneuver and as a social attack. It's not that insults and such as social attacks are inconceivable, it's just that maneuvers seem to be a more elegant, realistic and balanced way to integrate them into a combat setting. If social stress and consequences can be dealt in the midst of a fight, then physical combat skills and powers become highly devalued, because they're no longer necessary. Why bother with that eight-box stress track when you can instead attack that BCV's three-box social track instead? Mental attacks are dangerous enough (and, as I've mentioned in a previous post, are only possible via powers that explicitly provide the ability to attack the mental stress track, while no similar powers exist for the social stress track).

My last post in this thread pretty much sums up how I feel about which method the books seem to encourage. There's never an explicit "Thou Shalt Not Deal Social Stress in Physical Combat," but the general guideline seems to be that physical, mental and social conflicts are separate and distinct entities, barring specific exceptions like Incite Emotion that allow for crossover.