Any examples? Isn't the point of the very powerful maneuver that they can't succeed on those certain actions?
Depends on the maneuver.
Using the "silence" maneuver, for example:
HWWB puts up a 15-shift "silence" scene aspect
Nobody is going to be able to build up enough shifts to beat that unless they do a ritual. The maneuver is
going to last the whole scene.
The actions the maneuver is designed to impede may or may not succeed. So they can't talk but it doesn't mean they can't communicate. It's going to constantly cause problems for people on the scene leading to, probably, multiple compels that they can buy off with proper justification.
Remember that a compel is a negotiated.
"you can't hear so you're ambushed"I pay that compel off and roll alertness. I can still see.
Fair enough. But you can't warn anyone if you succeed.I can. I wave my hands and point in the direction of the ambush
Fine, but the enemy knows you're aware and gets to attack firstagreed
On the other hand, a 15 shift "disarm" attempt is going to succeed. Maybe the GM compels the target saying his weapon is broken. Or maybe it went flying up on top of a building - essentially putting it out of reach for the scene.
If he pays off the compel, he's simply saying, "I still have my weapon of choice". The maneuver exists. I might adjudicate is as a the weapon having some kind of dent/bend or damage allowing people to tag the existing maneuver (since it's sticky). Since it's sticky, even though the victim paid off one compel, it doesn't prevent others from paying a FP to gain a +2 advantage OR instigate another compel, forcing the victim to choose between his weapon or a FP. "it's so twisted, it falls from your grasp"
In both cases, it's not completely preventing an action (since they're buying off compels) but it's creating on-going complicating.
Hopefully those are good examples...