Noob Questions

[Sanctaphrax]

You don't think so?

Well, I'd be glad to discuss it. But maybe not here.

[computerking]

Some more Noob questions for you folks:

If a temporary Ward is breached, does it collapse like an Evocation Block? or does is lose strength as it is repeatedly breached, eventually grinding it down to zero?
Is it possible to make a brittle Ward (Low shifts of protection) backed by a powerful magic trap? Or does the Ward have to be strong enough to "support" the attached spell?
Does a blindness spell count as a block against all actions, or just as a maneuver to place the Blinded aspect? Or does the block allow for the Declaration of a Blinded Aspect on the target, for double the fun?

[Sanctaphrax]

1. All wards are temporary, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. They lose strength with repeated hits instead of collapsing instantly.
2. It's possible, as far as I know. I once put a player up against a 1 shift ward with a 14 shift evocation landmine, and nobody told me I was breaking the rules.
3. Blindness can be a block, a maneuver, or a declaration. But it can't block all actions, only those that require vision.

[UmbraLux]

If a temporary Ward is breached, does it collapse like an Evocation Block? or does is lose strength as it is repeatedly breached, eventually grinding it down to zero?

A ward has to be taken to -4 to be "permanently" destroyed before its duration is up.  Otherwise it's simply suppressed for a short period of time...generally one exchange per shift in combat.

Is it possible to make a brittle Ward (Low shifts of protection) backed by a powerful magic trap? Or does the Ward have to be strong enough to "support" the attached spell?

Sure.  It's also possible to suppress a portion of the ward without taking it down entirely.

Does a blindness spell count as a block against all actions, or just as a maneuver to place the Blinded aspect? Or does the block allow for the Declaration of a Blinded Aspect on the target, for double the fun?

Could be maneuver or block depending on exactly what you're trying to accomplish.  I generally go with perception block in combat (similar to a veil but applied to a victim). 

One thing to remember with blocks - anything they're blocking can also be used to break them.  You could create a block which blocks (almost) all possible actions but it probably wouldn't be simple blindness.  It'd be something like being encased in solid earth.  Your spell trappings decide specific effects.

Edit:  Here's a breakdown of a ward recently used in the game I'm running.
The ward totaled 28 shifts.  Breakdown follows:

• Duration of a mortal lifetime, 12 shifts
• Basic barrier / suppression effect rating / power 4, 4 shifts
• Enervating Drain (persistent block against movement), 12 shifts consisting of:
  • Trigger (entering uninvited), 2 shifts
  • Three zones (hall & entry, living room, stairs), 6 shifts
  • Persistent movement block rating 2, 4 shifts

They suppressed the basic ward effect for short periods by beating the number of shifts in that effect.  Excess shifts extended the suppression by one exchange per shift.  To take the ward down permanently, they'd have needed 32 (28+4) shifts.

[computerking]

They suppressed the basic ward effect for short periods by beating the number of shifts in that effect.  Excess shifts extended the suppression by one exchange per shift.  To take the ward down permanently, they'd have needed 32 (28+4) shifts.

Hmm... So, Counterspell would be useless against a Ward (Or any high-complexity thaumaturgical spell)?
Counterspell is looking less and less useful... Can't counter incoming spells, can't do squat against most thaum, What are they really good for?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Hmm... So, Counterspell would be useless against a Ward (Or any high-complexity thaumaturgical spell)?
Counterspell is looking less and less useful... Can't counter incoming spells, can't do squat against most thaum, What are they really good for?

It'd be right handy for removing magical maneuvers/blocks during combat without having to figure out how to get around them.  Zone-wide maneuvers can be especially annoying.

Evil Sorcerer: Let there be pea soup fog in the zone which mine enemies inhabit for the duration of this scene that I may flee!
Good Wizard: Bugger this for a game of soldiers. *counterspell*
Evil Sorcerer: Eeep!

[Sanctaphrax]

Counterspells are actually often the best way to deal with thaumaturgy, I think. Here's why:

1. Some thaumaturgy just can't be removed with normal methods. How else are you going to remove a bad luck curse? Prayer? Waiting until it wears off? Sitting under Niagara Falls until the running water washes the magic away? A counterspell would definitely be easier.

2. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift attack becomes a 19 shift ward. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift counterspell is toast.*

*For a given value of toast.

[computerking]

2. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift attack becomes a 19 shift ward. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift counterspell is toast.*

*For a given value of toast.

21 Shift counterspell? Sounds like nearly killing yourself (consequence-wise) to get rid of a ward. And that's just the Power summoning. The Backlash required on a single roll will probably drive you the rest of the way to dead. Still makes Counterspelling a poor trapping of Evocation.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

21 Shift counterspell? Sounds like nearly killing yourself (consequence-wise) to get rid of a ward. And that's just the Power summoning. The Backlash required on a single roll will probably drive you the rest of the way to dead. Still makes Counterspelling a poor trapping of Evocation.

You could pull it off and not be taken out at chest deep if you were willing/able to drop enough fate points on aspect invocations.  Then again, I can't find anywhere that forbids thaumaturgic counterspells, so that could also be an option.

[Sanctaphrax]

You're missing the point, computerking. The numbers are insignificant.

If you subtract 15 from all numbers in that example, it still works.

The point is that the counterspell is more effective than the attack. (Though this will not be true for all wards.)

[computerking]

You're missing the point, computerking. The numbers are insignificant.

If you subtract 15 from all numbers in that example, it still works.

The point is that the counterspell is more effective than the attack. (Though this will not be true for all wards.)

Maybe I'm not getting it. I was assuming that the "Power" you have to defeat with Counterspell is the "Power" of the entire spell, strength shifts, duration shifts, extra shifts to cover zones, etc. If all you have to beat is the strength shifts, then counterspell is looking better than I thought.

[sinker]

His point doesn't have anything to do with the numbers. It has to do with the fact that there are two options to get rid of a ward, attack and counterspell. When you attack (and beat the shifts of the ward) it only reduces the ward strength by one, leaving a intact ward that's only slightly less effective. When you counterspell (and beat it) then it completely removes the ward.

[computerking]

His point doesn't have anything to do with the numbers. It has to do with the fact that there are two options to get rid of a ward, attack and counterspell. When you attack (and beat the shifts of the ward) it only reduces the ward strength by one, leaving a intact ward that's only slightly less effective. When you counterspell (and beat it) then it completely removes the ward.

I get his point on the effectiveness of using Counterspell against a ward. But my new question is whether the counterspell only has to beat the ward's strength, or all the shifts of power required to make the ward. The book doesn't seem to make the distinction between the two when describing counterspelling, only referring to the power of the spell. It makes it easier if a counterspell doesn't have to surpass Spell strength and duration shifts and zone shifts, etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

It's ambiguous by the RAW. So it's up to you.

Regardless, counterspells will often still be better than attacks against low duration wards without landmines.

Also, depending on how you read the rules, counterspells may or may not trigger landmines. So there's that.

And of course counterspelling is the only practical countermeasure against some magical effects.

[UmbraLux]

I went with counterspell suppressing a portion of the ward for short periods (when targeted at a given part) but only taking the ward down permanently if it accounts for all shifts in the ward.