The way I see it Sponsored Magic is it is a -2 Channeling and for -2 Ritual and the only reason that Soul Fire is any different is because it has the toughness reducing power which is a very nice addition, so as long as you don't add the toughness power then the default cost should be 4.

The reason Soulfire has a higher cost is because it 'provides the full range of thaumaturgy spells'
ie. it comes not with Channeling and Ritual, but Channeling and Thaumaturgy (well, almost: it doesn't come with specializations, and you can't take refinement, except for additional item slots, unless you have Evocation or the actual Thaumaturgy power)

Now, if a type of sponsored magic doesn't lend itself to an agenda that could create complications for a character (such as the people who suggest that LTW has some sort of sponsored shapeshifting, or the Merlin has sponsored wards) then I would simply not let the user incur sponsor debt.

ie. simply allow the 'shell game' of thaumaturgy-with-evocation's-speed-and-methods to create more varied focused practitioners and specialist wizards/sorcerers?

Though come to think of it, there are a lot of times that Harry and Eb bitch about the Merlin's unwillingness to take the offensive, so maybe his uberwarding skills do involve a sponsor debt.

...THAT'd cause some political turmoil in the Council if it came to light...

Of course, ectoplasm is not subject to natural laws.

He asked about the FIRST Law, Tallyrand.

And yes, it would break the first law

"In the shadow"? You are aware the sun has this habit of moving across the sky during the day, right? Gravity and momentum don't follow shadows.

Taking "in the shadow" figuratively (as I believe you meant it),

thus the quotes, yes

I get what what you are saying, but I contend that executing such a drop accurately is a lot easier to say than it is to do. Pilots require a great deal of training to do that reliably, and they are just hitting a button. A character who is trying to push a car out of a plane (without the strength to physically heave it and throw it) is straining against the object, pushing, heaving, swaying, and generally hefting it about without a lot of finesse.

But you can play it however you like in your game. I'm satisfied with my interpretation of the rules at this time.

Difficulty in hitting the target should be represented as difficulty in hitting the target, not in the magnitude of effect produced on success

In that light, perhaps you'd be so kind as to allow me to clarify my position?

In any but the most contrived or obscure scenarios, a dichotomous Compel is unnecessary, unproductive as compared to other options, and just generally a BAD IDEA.


(traveling TOWARDS a destination is not the same as traveling TO a destination, ie. it does not necessarily result in you ending up AT that destination; perhaps a subtle distinction, but you see how such semantics change the meaning of a sentence, yes?)

Depends how tall the lifter is. We don't need to get terribly scientific about this, of course.

However, if you are angling to get more damage by tossing a car from a great height ONTO someone, the rules already address trying to use gravity as a damage shortcut in the Falling rules (YS319):

"The falling rules are not an invitation for super-strong characters and spellcasters to start picking people up and tossing them to a great height, only to fall down and take egregious falling damage. That’s an attack, and the stress dealt by any falling component is already included in the stress of the attack. If your force-bolt “uppercuts” a guy so he flies up and then falls back down with a crunch of bone, the damage dealt by the attack itself accounts for the “fall back down” part—essentially, in this case, falling is a special effect, a detail of color."

The rules address throwing the TARGET as a shortcut to damage

They do NOT address what you're suggesting: essentially lowering the damage because the weapon isn't travelling fast enough, ie. falling far enough

So...How about dropping it off the roof of a 5-story parking complex?  Does it get its full damage rating then?
What about dropping it out of the back of a cargo plane at several thousand feet?  Does it get its full damage rating then?

Looking at the books, there are several times when Dresden makes "stupid" decisions that feel like compels.

Like how he no choice but to take the money to investigate Lilly's disappearance in Summer Knight.  That was clearly a compel of his "broke" Aspect that the GM used to advance the story.

The compel there, is 'this is probably a bad idea, but you're flat broke, and would like to keep eating', NOT 'do this or else'
Harry COULD have turned it down, and found some other way to earn money.  He's bent his rules with regard to 'No love potions...or other entertainment' before.
Harry's player accepted the Compel (likely seeing it as the plot hook it was, or just being starved for fate points like most wizards), and narrated the situation as Harry not seeing any other option.

Having no alternative...  That's rarely the case.  It's just that the alternative looks so bad that it just might as well not exist.
"You have to let the bad guy go OR let the orphans burn in the magical fire you started.  If you let then you'll get the law breaker bit and the police will be looking for you for murder.  Your choice."

The Compel, there, assuming it's against one of the character's aspects, and not a scene aspect created from fallout, is the STARTING of the fire, not the choice between letting the bad guy go and saving the orphans.  And even if it's a scene aspect, a more appropriate Compel isn't a dichotomous choice, but simply a statement of the situation: 'the building is on fire, and if something isn't done, the orphans will die (a result of the character's use of magic that would earn Lawbreaker), but the bad guy is about to get away'.
That, at least, leaves room for creative solutions, like a spell that sucks enough heat out of the building to extinguish the flames, redirecting it into a pillar of flame straight up into the sky that will attract all kinds of attention, and would likely require enough shifts of power that the character will have to take a consequence or two (one for channelling that many shifts, and quite possibly another in backlash), but would allow them to at least have a fighting chance with regards to chasing down the bad guy.

Straight-up dichotomies are almost exclusively bad ideas in collaborative storytelling (ie pen+paper rpgs)

As for compels, if you really hate them then don't take Aspects that call on you to do the right thing at the right time.  Or save chips to buy them off.  If you've got the Aspect "defender of the weak" and you've been using it to win your fights then a compel of "You have to let the big bad guy get away while you help the girl tied to the alter" is an acceptable one.  Yes, it will mean fighting the big bad guy after he's rested and called up more minions, but you've defined yourself as defender of the weak and that girl needs you now.

It's like when a girl comes up to Dresden and says "Help me." and he says "Sure." and she says "But I'll only let you help me if you help my vampire boyfriend too.  Please Mr. Dresden, don't leave us here to die".  Dresden knows that he can barely get himself out, but he's got that Aspect and needs his chips (or is out of them), so he does what he can to save the girl and her vampire lover.  

Richard

Again.  DICHOTOMIES ARE BAD.  Be more creative.