No epiphany but one idea.
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.
So for example Harry the Helamakt devotee is using his Blow Down Foe against a Lunar missionary.
The Lunar cannot viably use Dodge because the magic will still take place and by the nature of the magic will do just what it says it does - blow down the lunar. Being one pace to the left or right of where he started will not help the Lunar in this case.
On the other hand an Tumbling ability could be used to state that the Lunar rolls straight back to his feet so swiftly as to surprise the Heortling. In this case the Lunar's player has found a way to accommodate the magic into the narrative without this necessarily putting him at a disadvantage in the contest.
Alternatively the Lunar could use Gesture to ward off magic. This is straight magic resistance and may weaken or cancel the magic itself. (I really do not comprehend the comment about improv modifier in the rulebook because it uses the ability rating of Common Magic. Anyone care to explain?)
I don't know if it helps but its an idea.
Nic
Powered by hypermail