I wouldn't conclude the circle are all infected. We don't even know if humans CAN be infected.

In Cold Days, Maeve implies strongly that she intended to Nfect Justine.

Maeve implies in cold days that she intended to Nfect Justine.

How's this for wording?
[-1] “Justice is Coming”: Both men and supernatural creatures learned to fear the vengeance of Wyatt Earp. You can declare one creature as the object of your vengeance, until either you take out that creature, or you declare vengeance on something else. Guns attacks with Earp’s Colt against that creature are Weapon:5.

This runs the chance of being overly broad. A player could declare vengeance on any character that is convenient and switch whenever they feel like it by this wording.

pst, your pms are full, sancta

   

  We haven't had a major character of consequences die in some time..  Especially anyone on "Team Harry," who's death sends out serious repercussions for the rest of the series...

Winter Court... 

     1]  Mab, a big one, if she dies, Molly becomes Queen... Big ripples..
      2]  Mother Winter, Mab becomes Mother, Molly becomes Queen, bigger ripples..
      3] Lea, might hurt, but in my opinion not that big a deal.

We know Mab and Molly are for sure off the table: they appear in Christmas eve as Winter Queen and Lady, and that's set after Peace Talks. By extension, since they've kept their positions, Mother Winter is still Mother Winter.

Lea is an interesting option.

The White Council..
     1] Eb,  yeah it would hurt, but ripples not huge
      2] Listens to Wind, again like Eb, ripples not huge that goes for the rest of the Senior
      Council with the exception of two.. 
       3] Rashid, huge impact because he is the Gatekeeper, often the swing vote on the Council, also   
       he appears to be a major general in the fight to keep out Nemesis etc at the Gates, we have
        no clue about just what he does, his death would be major...
          4]  The Merlin, mainly because of the power vacuum his death would create and the power struggle that would follow..

I think that LtW, Eb, Rashid, and Langtry each have 60-40 odds of surviving: any individual one is less likely to die, but I'm betting on a Senior Council level death curse, and we haven't seen Martha Liberty or Ancient Mai really go all out yet. Any one of the SC dying is going to have huge ripple effects, especially since Rashid implied in Turn Coat that Harry is going to confront the White Council at some point in the future.

     The White Court..

        1]  Thomas, for all the obvious reasons.. But he'd mainly matter to Harry, but ripples beyond that?  Doubtful...
        2] Lara, now her death would really stink up things.. 

Speaking from a storycraft perspective, Thomas is the main person with a target on his back from where I'm standing. Remember, we're not reading the books from the perspective of "what is the thing that is most significant in the world", we're reading them from Harry's perspective. Lara might die, but I'm going to give her 70-30 odds of surviving: she's pretty slick, and not inclined to slug things out if, say, Mab decides it's time to stop being nice and start raining unholy terror on everything.

     Murphy,  her death would cause a lot of personal pain for Harry, but her place in the universe is small...

Much to your chagrin, I think Murphy is the one person most likely to survive this mess other than people who have already been confirmed. She's almost certainly going to be involved, but in more of a coordinator of the Paranet role than a kicking ass role: I don't think JB is the type of person who's going to completely sideline a character with as imposing a presence as Murphy just because she's physically injured: he's made clear that he does NOT think that physical power is the be all end all of influence.

The issue I have is twofold: first, that supernatural beings like Thomas and Kincaid are supposed to be able to aim without trying particularly hard--Harry identifies Kincaid as supernatural because he doesn't miss, and Thomas is specifically called out as never having to practice in order to shoot well; second, that physics says that swinging a weapon faster should make it do more damage if it hits, and should also make it harder to dodge. Neither of these things appears to be represented in the game.

It probably is just represented as giving them a high Guns score, maybe with some invoking occasionally when a shot is important. If it’s really important, a stunt might be called for, but not a separate power. I actually have a concept for a character who is a telekinetic (as the telekinesis power on the wiki) and took a stunt to apply strength bonuses to their weapon shooting.

There's no reason DFRPG can't have negative weapon / armour ratings. It never has, but they would work fine.

You could also change weapon and armour from deal and relationship to favourable and unfavourable conditions in general, but I'd prefer negative ratings.

This seems workable.

I kind of feel like the negative version of weapon 4: ( destruction of all you hold dear) should be a separate intimidate roll, a maneuver, or something else.  Also if a character is automatically believed to be able to do this...perhaps roleplaying without need for social combat is likely best.  Or when dealing with someone like Mab or other plot devices rolls are not needed...they have 8-12 + in skills and a weapon rating serves no purpose.

I don’t think that role playing is bad by any means, but social combat tends to be treated as less important than physical combat in some ways, even though in real life it is the other way around. Having solid numbers is helpful. And plot devices in magical and physical powers are frequently not plot devices in social combat: Joe Schmoe can convince Mab to do something if he’s slick enough.

I assumed that is what maneuvers were for in social combat anyhow. 

OTOH I see no reason these can't exist... they just need tweaking.  And of course testing.

Maneuvers definitely need to exist with these rules. But they represent more “this is a factor more likely to make you take a deal”, just like maneuvers in physical combat are more “this is a factor more likely to make you take damage”

How will it deal with these situations:

1. A social conflict designed to ruin or bolster a reputation.  Ie: it has nothing to do with a deal.

This ends up being more a consequence of social combat than an actual aim (literally). In real life scenarios, it’s rare that you simply set out to ruin someone for the sake of it: you’re usually trying to get something out of it. “Deal” is something that should be applied very broadly. “Give me this or your reputation will suffer” is a valid deal.

2. The deception skill whose use is designed to make ‘disadvantageous’ requests seem advantageous.  It seems the whole point of deception is to circumvent high armour ratings and make high weapon values seem innocuous.

Make a deceit maneuver and tag it for effect to increase the weapon rating of your deal making. The DM will have to watch to make sure you don’t break this, but it should be fine.

3.  Intimidation seems to have the opposite problem.

Intimidation is another way to make social attacks (just a less pleasant one). You can get greater weapon ratings with deals you make with it if you’re in a position of some power (“I have your son”), but in a world of people (which is what your RPG should be), it’s going to make it more likely that someone is going to take offense to you threatening their son, and the deal falls apart the second you cannot harm their son anymore.