Ibxzero you are taking the most extreme way of interpretation and arguing against that. The spell says extreme prejudice not blind stupidity. You are willing to cause yourself pain to try and kill them, but you also wouldn't jump off a cliff to try and crush them with your body.

As val'Holryn says, an interruptable action is all a single action until you have FINISHED performing the action. If you are casting a spell for 7 ticks, and then you stop casting it 6 ticks in to perform another action (ie: decide to charge instead), you still haven't performed an action in those 6 ticks so the first action will be the charge. If you choose to perform an interruptable action, all you are doing is taking yourself out of the fight for longer without in any way 'finding a way around' EomE.

It's probably best to play it by its intent, which has been explained, and not try to circumvent it with word smithing.

John

I am giving you the calls that GMs will make. Don't assume otherwise.

I know what the real intent is. The target of the spell attacks caster's chosen target as if it was an enemy in the encounter. The issue with "extreme prejudice" or "extreme hatred" is subject to "role playing".

The spell does not directly say your character will perform a very damaging attack. It is very loose showing that your character will respond to the target with extreme malice. Combine that with role playing, some characters will trip or weaken the new target first, which is just as effective as most damaging attack.

One of the obvious problems is the limits of the spell, and I have been in arguments on how to interpret it. So far, the only limit set is a caster will cast a spell while at 4 strain or under. It doesn't set limits as to how long the spell lasts or the use of limited per scene actions, like some talents, runes, and certain spells.

If the intent of this spell is for the affected character to do their best feasible, most damaging single attack against the chosen target, it is poorly written. The effect printed in the book for Enemy of My Enemy does not reflect that. It reflects a role play response.

There are many GMs that will be pissed off because I didn't have my character use Smite Infidel and Avalanche Rune during the EoME but 4 actions later in the combat. Part of the reason is that a player would have been incapacitated or dead, thus 2 elites should not have been vanquished. My arguments against is that my character will not open out with his once per scene abilities on his first strike against an opponent when feeling compelled to wish death on the target, in addition to the factor that forcing an opposing character to use limited per scene abilities must require a fate point.

I am not wordsmithing. I am helping you guys straighten this spell out and make the proper rulings over it.

For EoME, you need to make a ruling on what it specifies. Again, it gives no limits. It says on your next action, you start attacking the illusion of the target. It really does not specify if its effect only exists for one action only or not. When experiencing extreme hatred or prejudice, you don't fire one round out of a gun and stop. You empty the clip. In the combat system, that is multiple actions.

Next, you need to look at forcing limited per scene abilities because both players and GMs will use the spell to force a character to use its trump card on a more advantageous target, and everyone will be angry.

Err... no. Certainly not many GM's have that attitude. None of the GM's I know are like that. If your GM gets angry over this then there is a much bigger problem going on in your group than just the spell. Arcanis is supposed to be a game of cooperative enjoyment. If your or your GM's attitude it is beat down each other in combat, then you are missing out on a lot of fun.

As a GM I wouldn't be pissed off or make a big deal of it, but I would know the player wasn't following the rules if all he did was a base attack, instead of using the talents and methods he should have used. That might encourage me to be less sympathetic to that character later.

I think the spell is well and clearly written, and I've never encountered someone (GM or player) having difficulties interpreting it before. Do your best attack to kill the target, ignoring up to a certain level of risk to do so (as specified by the spell). I could see discussions about whether your character is willing to charge past every single bad guy receiving AoOs to do a single attack or someone question the level of risk they are willing to take under the spell. That I could see because it is character and player specific and I don't believe the spell immediately makes a coward a raging barbarian. But I've never seen anyone wonder if they should use scene or day specific powers - they should, if they will effect the "enemy."

I think the spell is well written because there are far too many variables to cover in a spell description. If you're climbing a cliff with your buddy and holding a rope when affected by the spell - the best attack might be simply letting go. In a battle on a bridge, using every talent you have in one big hit may be less dangerous than a simple push attack. Surrounded by enemies? Maybe a trip and a 5 foot move away is best. All of these are decisions that you as the player are supposed to make while roleplaying that you are under this effect. If a player has trouble doing that, than no advice on the board or rules clarification is going to help them.