Think about it this way. There is no "magic" in the DV, no "mana" or "power", there is only your being, your thoughts, your will.

Accepting that, what you are doing is forcibly inserting your thoughts/being into someone else with the intent of disrupting their thoughts/being. How would that not change their natural inclinations and thoughts?

Also you may want to reread the laws in Your Story. The fourth law is titled "Never enthrall another" which would imply direct or complete control, but when you read further it states that any attempt to change the natural inclinations or thoughts is bad.

Um, guys? It really is fairly irrelevant what term you use to describe it, and this argument has nothing to do with the original question. Do you have anything more to say to the original poster?

To be honest, I've only ever found mental attacks to be mildly overpowered. Most of the things that are supposed to be tough (like Sue) could probably invoke their high concept to be immune. That being said, things that are more self aware (like ghouls) do go down way easier that way. It is a bit overpowered Lavecki, take it from people who have tried it.

The main issue that I see with it though is simply the narrative weirdness of not hitting someone and still achieving your goal. One of the things that you have to understand in fate conflicts is that a successful attack may still completely miss. Stress is just energy expended avoiding an attack (or casting a spell, or whatever). If you haven't inflicted a consequence then you haven't even hit your target. Even if you do inflict a consequence, you still may not hit. I can flavor the consequence to be a result of escaping your attack. That's how we wind up with consequences like "sprained ankle" when you're shooting a gun at me.

So really, I just find it wonky that you could fail to connect with your target physically, but then still influence them in exactly the way you were trying to. Wonkyness happens when you mix physical and mental actions.

It's not necessarily overpowered, it just requires a lot of GM fiat (which is why it's primarily a NPC thing). Which is why you should definitely make sure your GM is up to it.

I think we're getting distracted in the argument fellas. The whole point of this forum (or I guess this thread in particular) is to help the OP to figure out how to do what he (or she) wants to do. What he wants to do is use pressure points (narrative) to hinder spellcasting both using an action in conflict, in a way that can be long lasting.

We have already determined that a block doesn't give the duration required, and that normal stress/consequences are poor at best. What should the OP do?

You know, straight thaumaturgy does allow for assigning specific consequences.

Yeah, straight RAW is that pure Fey are a no-no. We've passed into house rule territory (or perhaps house setting) long ago.

I think I have pinned one of the things that bothers me about it.

Butcher seems to descrbe the fueling of a spell being less about power or energy and more about throwing one's self into it. Harry fuels his spells with anger, passion, heck I believe he has even fueled a spell with tiredness. That's right, Harry fuels a spell with a lack of energy. That seems antithetical to how I understand chi to funtion. Chi is an energy, and as I understand it, you can't fuel a chi working with a lack of chi. That inconsistency bugs me.