[Enchanted Items] Legal to have 2 maneuvers in a single slot?

[Arcteryx]

Have been presented with a design idea that fires off 2 maneuvers when an item slot is activated - it is six shifts of power, so, good for 2 maneuvers - is this legal? I know evocation wise, you don't fire off 2 multiple spells at the same time, but maybe it is possible through thaumaturgy? My initial feeling is no, it isn't legal, but who knows? So  I thought I'd consult with the Powers That Be who inhabit the board

The maneuvers that are being proposed refer to it being sharp and the blade being wielded with a purpose - the intent is to tag each of them for a +4 to the next action.

[UmbraLux]

Have been presented with a design idea that fires off 2 maneuvers when an item slot is activated - it is six shifts of power, so, good for 2 maneuvers - is this legal? I know evocation wise, you don't fire off 2 multiple spells at the same time, but maybe it is possible through thaumaturgy? My initial feeling is no, it isn't legal, but who knows?

An enchanted item should contain a single spell so, unless you're allowing a lot of leeway on spin use, it should be a single maneuver - potentially with multiple uses. 

That said, the book shows examples of single use weapon bonuses (the wardens' swords for example) which go beyond a single maneuver bonus.  Since it doesn't show the mechanics of how those are made, I'd say it's up to you. 

I might go with a straight Weapon bonus at a 2:1 shift to bonus ratio instead of the maneuvers.  But there isn't really a hard rule for it. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'd allow it.  Resist separately and should be related.

[ways and means]

You can't do two manouvres with enchanted item but you can do a single tharmaturgical spell which creates multiple taggable aspects.

[InFerrumVeritas]

You can't do two manouvres with enchanted item but you can do a single tharmaturgical spell which creates multiple taggable aspects.

Sorry, this is what I meant.

[Arcteryx]

You can't do two manouvres with enchanted item but you can do a single tharmaturgical spell which creates multiple taggable aspects.

This seems to imply it's completely by-the-book then and legal...? Because you can put embed thaumaturgical spells into a slot?

[ways and means]

Thats the interpretation I had off it.

[Masurao]

This seems to imply it's completely by-the-book then and legal...? Because you can put embed thaumaturgical spells into a slot?

I'm going of the deep end here, but isn't the 'spell' you can put in an enchanted item, referring to Evocation-like spells? I mean, technically, the killing curse from Storm Front is one spell, but would you allow it in an item? I'm not saying that two Aspects created at once is over-powered, mind you, with limited uses (or a use), it shouldn't be a game breaker, but you're stretching the rules a bit. Also, it might be better explainable if the two Aspects were somehow related or close in nature, retardedly put: "The best thing about the sword is that when it's on fire, it's also searingly hot

[ways and means]

Thamaturgy spells can create multiple aspects and enchanted items can store tharmaturgical spells so that is perfectly kosher within the game rules. There are even examples of enchanted items having multiple aspect worth of effect (see stimulant).

[Sanctaphrax]

Possible, but slightly cheesy.

That killing curse would be doable with a powerful enough item. However, even the Archive couldn't come close to making that item. And you'd probably still need a link to the target.

[UmbraLux]

This seems to imply it's completely by-the-book then and legal...? Because you can put embed thaumaturgical spells into a slot?

Well....both are open to interpretation.  Multiple aspect creation via thaumaturgy isn't explicit as far as I know, it's simply a commonly accepted interpretation on the theory thaumaturgy should be more capable than evocation.  I don't think what spell you can put in an enchanted item is explicit either, just that it needs to be a single spell with a limited number of shifts. 

It's really up to the individual group.  I'd recommend erring on the side of permissiveness with the explicit caveat that NPCs may do the same thing. 

[Blackblade]

Multiple aspect creation via thaumaturgy isn't explicit as far as I know, it's simply a commonly accepted interpretation on the theory thaumaturgy should be more capable than evocation.  I don't think what spell you can put in an enchanted item is explicit either, just that it needs to be a single spell with a limited number of shifts.

Multiple Aspect creation is explicitly explained on YS 265. 

[Arcteryx]

Multiple Aspect creation is explicitly explained on YS 265.

Nice one.

I think at the end of the day, GM's should step in and rule according to common sense; hopefully the GM has some Thanks for the contributions everyone, always a pleasure to bounce ideas of all you knowledgeable folk!

[wyvern]

Yes, this is RAW legal.  It's also something that a GM should really watch out for - in general, you should make sure that at least one of the aspects generated is something that you'll be able to compel against the PC, in addition to whatever positive uses it might have.

It's also a good thing to consider banning, or allowing on a trial or case-by-case basis only.

For an example, one of my PCs has been toying with a high-end sponsored magic transformation ritual; I've ruled that it grants one free tag on each of the following six aspects:
Frostbite's Favor; Thirty Foot Wingspan; Dark Form, Dark Thoughts; Glacier's Implacable Might; Empowered Shadows; Power Is An Aphrodisiac
Could the player cast this in the middle of combat?  Sure!  It's only a complexity 18 ritual; that's totally doable via thaumaturgy-with-the-speed-and-methods-of-evocation - if you're willing to take a good half-dozen points of sponsor debt (remember, The Dark Powers Are Always Willing To Help!)
Alas, the character is demonstrating a reasonable amount of paranoia about how he uses the spell.  And I was so looking forward to the opportunity for compelling collateral damage.  Oh, well.  Maybe later.

[Arcteryx]

I do like this aspect (no pun intended) of the game; that a lot of the "mechanical" balance actually lies in the narrative of the game.