Quote please? I'm not seeing that. I am seeing this: "...by splitting up your shifts of power...if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2)." And farther down: "This is essentially a spray attack (page 326) using magic instead of conventional weapons. “Mundane” spray attacks don’t have to split up their Weapon ratings, but they’re much less flexible than the wizardly equivalent." Emphasis added.
YS326 covers mundane spray attacks, not spells. Mundane spray attacks don't have to split power, spells do.
That was a quote. It's the paragraph directly after the part about splitting power. Seriously, read the entire section.
"Instead of attacking zones, you can attack individual targets by splitting up your shifts of power. So if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2). Since you can’t make a power 0 attack, the power of the spell deter- mines how many targets you can hit: at most, a power 3 spell can be split into three power 1 attacks.
The targeting result is also split up, and not necessarily in the same portions. If you rolled a Fantastic (+6) result to target your 5 shifts of power, you might split the power as detailed above, but make the Weapon:2 attack a Great (+4) for targeting and the Weapon:3 attack a Fair (+2)."
Umm...how do you read that? Those numbers are not what I put in the example.
First exchange was Control 8 (Discipline 5 plus 3 from foci and specialties), subsequent exchanges were Control 5 with no roll and no additions since it's a supplemental action. The 5 is simply a target for the victim's defense roll - though it does (or should) need to be capable of controlling whatever shifts of power were designated for the round. The -1 for a supplemental action would apply to whatever roll / action the caster did take in the subsequent exchanges.
It's on the opponent's turn? Does that mean it's taking their action? You're not showing your spell Power in your examples. Means I'm really not sure I'm following you. I'm beginning to wonder if we're even using the basic evocation rules the same.
I really am showing the spell power in my examples. We are using the same evocation rules, but I don't think you're reading my posts correctly or carefully. My example used Control 8 Power 8. I did my best to keep it identical to yours. It was the last sentence of my post.
I did misunderstand about how your example was using discipline on subsequent rounds.
And no, it's not taking their action on their turn. Just stating exactly when the stress is dealt. Technically, it could be whenever in the exchange.
Okay, so in your example:
Round 1: Control 8 Power 8 Spell. Power split 3, 2, 3. Target has Superb defense (and we will assume he rolls +0 for an average). So the target takes 6 stress this round (3 from the 8 shift attack beating the 5 shift defense, 3 from the weapon rating this round).
Round 2: Discipline 5 Weapon Rating 2. Target's Superb defense roll still means the attack hits. Target takes 2 stress form the weapon rating. Caster takes -1 on his primary action this exchange.
Round 3: Discipline 5 Weapon Rating 3. Target's Superb defense roll still means the attack hits. Target takes 3 stress form the weapon rating. Caster takes -1 on his primary action this exchange.
That's still significantly better than my example. Your version deals 6+2+3 stress versus my example dealing only 3 with the same Power and Control. The -1 it imposes on rolls is not enough to offset this.