I can see it happening though. In a fight, people's egos are particularly exposed. A high deceit roll like "I killed your father," would be a wonderful attack. Sure, it can be a maneuver to place an aspect. But you could also be socially damaging a character and forcing a consequence like "Enraged" (which, while it can be an aspect is also a rather potent social consequence).
I'd argue that "I killed your father." was the end result of a long chain of misinformation which also took advantage of one or more character aspects. That's actually a good way to justify social attacks in combat though...a lot of work setting things up followed by the 'reveal' (and judicious use of fate points).
One other comment though...I think we may have different ideas of what constitutes a social consequence. To me,
Enraged is a mental consequence. Under some situations it may be followed by a social consequence some time later (
Deeply Ashamed or possibly
Abjectly Apologetic) but probably only after some points out what he's done in the form of a social attack. (Though I'd consider converting mental or even physical consequences to social if the situation warranted it. After all, you can't stay
Enraged forever...takes too much energy.)
Yes, bullets work very fast. Much faster than swords. Much faster than fists. Much faster than feet. They're a poor time reference. Combat exchanges aren't a set time. They're fluid.
Fluid to a degree yes. Just how fluid is dependent on each group.
But why have them if they're so completely separate? Again, it becomes that bone you through your noble before the inevitable brawl with the equally inevitable thumb twiddling and cringing. Now, don't get me wrong. That's hyperbole. But it's valid hyperbole that services a point. Either social attacks are viable attacks that are integrated into the game play, which means it's silly that "shamed" can take the place of "broken ribs", or social attacks are to be completely relegated to a separate arena, which if that's the case, it drastically lowers its value as being part of the world as a whole. It becomes a mini-game. It's kind of like an rpg "separate but equal" argument and falls apart for similar reasons. Again, hyperbole, I'm not making a literal comparison and realize that I'm comparing trivialities and amusements to important stuff, I'm just trying to show a logical similarity, not a moral one, if you take my meaning.
You appear to be making a big assumption...that physical combat logically follows after social. There are a variety of situations where physical combat isn't really an option. Perhaps you want something other than death or injury. (Consider trying to clear an unruly mob from a nightclub before the vamps show up. Do you really want to attack them? Convincing them to leave seems a better option.) Perhaps the current situation prevents you from using force. (Consider a trial.
Molly's trial is a good example.
) Perhaps your opponent simply outclasses you. (Pull a gun on the Winter Queen...then roll up a new character because she probably has a new hound.) Or it could be some combination of those.
Just because social and physical combat may be separate doesn't mean one becomes useless. It means you use the tool needed for the current job.
