> One way to reconcile this seemingly self-contradictory part of the
> rules would be to take the stance that a mundane defence cannot
> prevent the magic from taking place but may prevent it from
> affecting the outcome of the contest. Therefore a mundane defence
> must be described in terms of how it allows the user to continue to
> do well in the contest despite the magic taking place if it is to be
> considered an appropriate ability to use for resistance.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, that's what makes so much of this argument so difficult. It is extremely rare for a roll to be about whether or not the magic works. HQ is a contestresolution system, not a task-oriented one. For instance, in a Simple Contest where I am running to jump out of the window, and you decide to cast some kind of pain spell on me, it's not a contest about my ability to resist your magic.
> So for example Harry the Helamakt devotee is using his Blow Down Foe
> against a Lunar missionary.
<snip>
Exactly.
One way I modelled it mentally in my head was that you can always assume that the roll to manifest the magic is against 14, and then the other rolls are about using the magic effectively.
In the end, as I've said, I've decided to just situational modifier it as appropriate, although I have no hard and fast rule for that.
Powered by hypermail