Veils

[Mr. Death]

To my mind, the adjusted skill checks and adjusted difficulty don't to apply to direct character-vs-character actions. In any other character vs. character convlict, anything below the defense roll simply fails.

Let's say that it's a vampire rolling a 3 Fists attack that fails to break Harry's 4-strength block. Does the vampire get a partial success?

Or, I'd say that because Molly clearly intended to get the Gruff's attention with the snowball, the gruff simply can't declare that it gives them any kind of advantage, on the basis that Molly would have considered that in her action and, once again, actually moved instead of standing stock still after poking something capable of killing her (which is, again, a blindingly stupid thing for her to do).

Or because, as has been mentioned, the Gruff is a low level goon who's not there to kill Molly specifically, he just doesn't make any declarations.

I want to see how your interpretation handles this example.

From what I understand of your interpretation, we would something like:

Molly throws a snowball from under her 3 strength veil. Gruff gets an alertness roll at +2 to notice her, with his alertness of 1 he does. He proceeds to kill her messily.

You have stated multiple times that circumstances, or attacks or whatever would grant people a bonus to notice the veiled character. Here is one from page 5 of this thread (reply 72).

So, baring that in mind, my interpretation goes like:

Molly is veiled in her 3-shift rote. She throws a snowball as a maneuver, and tags it to get the Gruff to break off from Harry. The Gruff can't make a declaration like "I saw where it came from" because him noticing the snowball was the whole point. The Gruff might, say, invoke the resulting aspect, meaning Molly gets the fate point because it would be a compel against her, but being that he's a beginning-of-scenario mook, he does not. Possibly also because he's a Summer fae and he's knee-deep in snow. His Alertness roll fails, and because the initial aspect was tagged to draw him off Harry, he wastes his turn swinging at air.

Alternatively, as I suggested before, maybe Molly casts the veil as a direct maneuver against the Gruff, and then tags it to compel him to attack her and miss, with the snowball thrown in as flavor text.

[Centarion]

But then Molly has to make all of those declarations and invokes any time she wants her veils to be at all effective at defending her, given her power level, which is, at best, a cumbersome way to play. Why design a character whose main gimmick doesn't work unless you boost everything two or three times whenever you want to be at all effective?

And first encounter or not, they knock Dresden--a full fledged combat wizard who's several refresh higher than Molly--around quite a bit and leave him with at least a couple Consequences. They're mooks, but mooks capable of doing serious damage.

Absent fate points and declarations, my interpretation plays out like the scene in the book--Molly gets away unseen and unscathed, and the scene in the book is not presented as something that is unusual for Molly to be capable of. The other interpretation, absent fate points and declarations, requires bending the RAW significantly for Molly to get away unscathed.

First of all, in my example of this combat from post number 98, which in post number 101 I show includes no elements not found in the RAW, allows her to get away unscathed. I would say that the rules for partial success do not apply to direct attacks and maneuvers and such, but a check to notice someones veil is not one of those. As you have stated, it is not even an action.

This just comes down to you arbitrarily deciding that there is no way you can do anything to anyone under a veil without beating the whole veil strength. What about when I throw paint or dust as a maneuver, how do I know where to throw it?

Second, I have yet to see an example from you that allows the same. As far as I can tell, by your interpretation, the Gruff would easily beat her 3 shift veil as soon as she threw the snowball, and that would be his only choice. I am aware this could happen in my scenario as well, but only if the Gruff chose to use his tag to boost a perception roll, and not attack.

I find it unconvincing to say that since the intent of the maneuver was to draw attention, the Gruff does not get the benefit of his attention being drawn. Just because her maneuver is intended to draw his attention, does not mean she gets free supplemental movement. Nor does it negate the fact that he saw where the snowball came from.

Third, if it created a character, of the lowest power level, whose main gimmick was Veils, they would be able to throw around 5 shift veils easily. With only channeling and ritual, you have a character with 4 focus item slots, Molly is described as having great control, so she has 4 discipline, she has low power so 2 conviction (this would be higher if I was actually tying to build an effective character). She has a focus that is + 3 power +1 control for defensive spirit, which is allowed with 4 Lore, if she had less lore she would need more conviction, whatever. Bam! 5 shift veil rote. Our only conclusion here is that either Molly is understated in OW, or she was not designed to be powerful with veils. 

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, you keep saying that and either I'm not understanding what you're saying or I'm not making myself clear.  Let me clarify.

Defender = Veiled person
Attacker = person trying to overcome the veil

In a situation defender does something to make themselves known, I might allow a free Awareness check on veiled persons turn.

On the opponents turn, I'd allow them to make an Assessment as an action.  If they had a reason to do so, like a declaration to say that they just witnessed a fireball from the corner (basically, they need a reason to target a specific area of the zone and have reason to start attacking the air in the first place), I'd allow them to make an attack action INSTEAD of an Assessment.

Previously, I was under the impression that your definition of "something to make themselves known" included things less obvious, like having been present at the start of combat. If this bit includes the veiler getting a fate point (because if they're being attacked despite their veil strength not being met, they deserve one), then I'm fine with that. I'm also talking, however, about things like Molly using a veil when the enemy already knows she's present in the battle. Earlier, it seemed your interpretation that that alone was justification to directly target them.

If the attack succeeded, the defender would take stress (which would be buffered by the spell), but they would still be under the affects of a veil.

Here's where we differ--I don't think a veil should act as a direct block against an attack, because it's doing nothing to stop whatever attack is coming.

Basically, the attacker has to choose to attack (and deal with the block), or use perception to break the block - not both.  So an attacker can attack all day but have to deal with a "X" number block, or spend his time trying to get rid of the veil so that his attacks are more effective.

Where we differ here is I don't consider the Alertness roll to be a full-turn action, at least if it succeeds. Investigation or Lore, I'd say would be the full action, but Alertness is more passive.

It is true that in the case that the defender does something completely obvious that I'd allow a reactive Awareness check by the attacker.  If a defender wants to attack, they usually have lots of options like spirit evocations that are invisible or air evocations that don't originate from them.  The attacker, then, has to be more creative in making declarations to attack the defender and might be better off using his turn maneuvering or using Awareness.

Lastly, an attack like a fists attack, I might rule would break the veil.  My reasoning is thus:  a block, is a block, is a block.  A veil should also cover up tactile perception and for that reason, a successful fists attack might be enough to break the veil.

I'll agree that doing things like visible attacks, being against the purpose of the veil, should be grounds for a compel to remove the veil, because there's nothing in the mechanics saying a veil fails in this instance.

Wow...3 posts since I wrote this.  My point about Molly, is that the Gruffs aren't throwing around FP's at her.  We're talking about that specific  scene.  Also, Molly isn't trying to defeat the Gruffs.  From what I remember, she distracts them, they miss her (maybe they roll poorly) and then she runs away.

Not trying to defeat them, no, but she still escapes the battle without so much as a scratch--and this is after we're shown that her magical muscle isn't enough to stop snowballs thrown by a handful of school kids.

Also, remember that the Gruffs Ambushed Harry.  No defence roll.

Eh, I think he made the Alertness roll at the start--as I recall, it's not until he's grappling with one that he gets his nose broken.

EDIT:  part of what makes Veils Molly's main gimmik is she has aspect that support it and therefore allow her to use FP's to boost her veils when she's obviously out of her depth.

A gimmick that requires spending fate points isn't a very good gimmick. Harry doesn't need to use fate points to burn buildings down.

This just comes down to you arbitrarily deciding that there is no way you can do anything to anyone under a veil without beating the whole veil strength. What about when I throw paint or dust as a maneuver, how do I know where to throw it?

No, it's not. I have said, repeatedly, that there are several ways to affect someone under a veil--zone attacks, spray attacks, and maneuvers. Throwing paint or dust would work as a maneuver, because you're throwing it in a wide arc to find the person. You're suggesting that someone is throwing paint directly at the veiler because they know for certain exactly where they are.

Second, I have yet to see an example from you that allows the same. As far as I can tell, by your interpretation, the Gruff would easily beat her 3 shift veil as soon as she threw the snowball, and that would be his only choice. I am aware this could happen in my scenario as well, but only if the Gruff chose to use his tag to boost a perception roll, and not attack.

Did you not read my previous post? Because I explain exactly why I think that's the case.

I find it unconvincing to say that since the intent of the maneuver was to draw attention, the Gruff does not get the benefit of his attention being drawn. Just because her maneuver is intended to draw his attention, does not mean she gets free supplemental movement. Nor does it negate the fact that he saw where the snowball came from.

Who said anything about supplemental movement? She can move around all she wants within the zone, and the zone in this case is probably most, if not all, of a pretty sizable backyard. And who says he saw where the snowball came from? He wasn't looking in that direction. As I recall, she throws it from the back or the side of the gruff, which gives him, at best, a vague direction to look for where his target was several seconds ago--not even anything like range, she could be anywhere from a foot to 20 away.

Third, if it created a character, of the lowest power level, whose main gimmick was Veils, they would be able to throw around 5 shift veils easily. With only channeling and ritual, you have a character with 4 focus item slots, Molly is described as having great control, so she has 4 discipline, she has low power so 2 conviction (this would be higher if I was actually tying to build an effective character). She has a focus that is + 3 power +1 control for defensive spirit, which is allowed with 4 Lore, if she had less lore she would need more conviction, whatever. Bam! 5 shift veil rote. Our only conclusion here is that either Molly is understated in OW, or she was not designed to be powerful with veils.

If we're going to squeeze every single advantage we can out of it, yes. But Molly is, you know, not built to be solely a veiling machine, she's built to be an actual character who's still learning this stuff--she has talent and a specialization.

And I simply find it ridiculous that you think that the game has to be completely wrong about the write-up of one of the central characters in the series. Isn't it much simpler that you're, you know, not quite right about how veils work than to say that the writers of the game don't know how it works?

[Centarion]

And I simply find it ridiculous that you think that the game has to be completely wrong about the write-up of one of the central characters in the series. Isn't it much simpler that you're, you know, not quite right about how veils work than to say that the writers of the game don't know how it works?

I think my interpretation handles this situation better than yours does. Under my interpretation, the only stretch is that you have to allow partial success when looking for someone under a veil, and the the Gruff chose to attack her instead of using his tag to boost his alertness roll. The second stretch is justified by the fact that this is what he did in the scene (charge at where she was). The first stretch, is something that I feel is allowable under the rules, but is again an interpretation of two sections combined, so your interpretation may be different. I would also like to add that I would likely not allow partial successes for normal free alertness checks. When you scan a room for the first time, you either detect someone, or you don't. Only when you take a whole action to really look/maneuver, or when your attention is drawn to a specific place (like by being hit with a snowball), do you get a chance to notice details (or guess a location based on trajectory of a snowball) that give you aspects to tag.

If we're going to squeeze every single advantage we can out of it, yes. But Molly is, you know, not built to be solely a veiling machine, she's built to be an actual character who's still learning this stuff--she has talent and a specialization.

I am aware of that. Which is why I think it is reasonable that before she learned anything she only makes 3 shift veils, even with her talent. But you said

why design a character whose main gimmick doesn't work unless you boost everything two or three times whenever you want to be at all effective?

And since you feel that Molly's "main gimmick" is casting veils, that should be what her character is best at. If you design a character, at any power level, whose best effect is a 3 shift spell, you have designed a character that is purposefully weak. So this leads me to believe that either Veils are not her Main gimmick as written in OW (which would seem to contradict the case files). Or her power level was set too low, like most casters in OW (especially the senior council, have you seen their write ups?).

• the gruff simply can't declare that it gives them any kind of advantage
• he just doesn't make any declarations
• but being that he's a beginning-of-scenario mook, he does not
• and because the initial aspect was tagged to draw him off Harry, he wastes his turn swinging at air.

Here is all of the stuff I take issue with in your example. In order for your example to work at all, the Gruff has to choose not to/be denied the option to make a declaration, that you, in multiple posts, have said is the way we should go about this. Basically, you are saying that in order for Molly to live in this case, the Gruff has to choose not to win.

Second, I do not think you are allowed to make a maneuver and then invoke it for effect to make someone skip their turn. That would almost certainly have to be a compel.

So basically, in my example, the Gruff has to make the dubious choice of attacking instead of perceiving with his free tag, which we know he did in the story since he tries to attack. But otherwise we do not have to introduce any fiat/intentional dumbing down of the enemies. In your example, in order to get the desired result, you basically have to have the bad guy choose to waste his turn for no reason.

[Mr. Death]

I think my interpretation handles this situation better than yours does. Under my interpretation, the only stretch is that you have to allow partial success when looking for someone under a veil, and the the Gruff chose to attack her instead of using his tag to boost his alertness roll. The second stretch is justified by the fact that this is what he did in the scene (charge at where she was). The first stretch, is something that I feel is allowable under the rules, but is again an interpretation of two sections combined, so your interpretation may be different. I would also like to add that I would likely not allow partial successes for normal free alertness checks. When you scan a room for the first time, you either detect someone, or you don't. Only when you take a whole action to really look/maneuver, or when your attention is drawn to a specific place (like by being hit with a snowball), do you get a chance to notice details (or guess a location based on trajectory of a snowball) that give you aspects to tag.

And that's more stretching than my method.

I am aware of that. Which is why I think it is reasonable that before she learned anything she only makes 3 shift veils, even with her talent. But you said

What you think is "reasonable" is totally irrelevant. What we have is the game's write-up of a character that Harry has absolutely no reason to misjudge on her power level. Molly, at the time of Small Favor, is low-powered, and her rote veil is 3-shifts. That is, as far as I am concerned, fact.

And since you feel that Molly's "main gimmick" is casting veils, that should be what her character is best at. If you design a character, at any power level, whose best effect is a 3 shift spell, you have designed a character that is purposefully weak. So this leads me to believe that either Veils are not her Main gimmick as written in OW (which would seem to contradict the case files). Or her power level was set too low, like most casters in OW (especially the senior council, have you seen their write ups?).

In combat, yes, that is what Molly is best at. "What she is best at" doesn't mean "She is literally as good as she could possibly be at this level." It means, in combat, Molly's best option is to veil. Molly was not written and designed with the goal, "We want to make a character who is the best person at making veils ever." She was written and designed with the goal, "Let's represent Molly as she's presented in the books."

And the Senior Councils' write-ups are completely irrelevant, because the game itself says their write-ups are low estimates because Harry doesn't know much about them, and hasn't seen them personally in action. As her teacher, Harry would and should know exactly what Molly is capable of.

Or should we disregard the Fae at large's write-ups because the game acknowledges it doesn't know everything about Lily or Maeve?

Here is all of the stuff I take issue with in your example. In order for your example to work at all, the Gruff has to choose not to/be denied the option to make a declaration, that you, in multiple posts, have said is the way we should go about this. Basically, you are saying that in order for Molly to live in this case, the Gruff has to choose not to win.

The game isn't about being fair to the no-name, first-session-of-a-campaign goons. As has been pointed out, Molly isn't their main objectives, they're the first encounter in the story, and this isn't a knock-down, drag-out, fight to the death for Molly.

The gruffs probably aren't getting Consequences to fall back on, either. Fact is, making a bunch of assessments and squeezing every advantage out of a fight is the PCs' job, not the GM's, unless it's a high-level, high-stakes encounter.

I'm saying for Molly to get away unscathed, as she does, the GM has to not take every advantage he can and simply play by the numbers. The GM, in this case, should be pushing Molly if he wants to make it difficult for Molly--which he's not. That encounter's made to get Dresden's attention.

Second, I do not think you are allowed to make a maneuver and then invoke it for effect to make someone skip their turn. That would almost certainly have to be a compel.

Sure. But since the Gruffs are nameless fae goons who aren't heavily invested in taking out Molly, it doesn't matter.

So basically, in my example, the Gruff has to make the dubious choice of attacking instead of perceiving with his free tag, which we know he did in the story since he tries to attack. But otherwise we do not have to introduce any fiat/intentional dumbing down of the enemies. In your example, in order to get the desired result, you basically have to have the bad guy choose to waste his turn for no reason.

You're conflating character action with GM action. It's not dumbing down enemies--there is absolutely nothing in the rules that entitles the Gruff to make that declaration and tag it for any reason.

The bad-guy isn't choosing to waste his turn for no reason. The GM is letting Molly's player get away with a trick and play support for the main target of the attack.

Molly and Harry are the players; the Gruffs are nameless first-level goons. This makes a big difference. High level enemies? Sure, they can and should make those assessments to make Molly's life difficult (and, indeed, by Changes Molly likely has a few more ranks in Conviction to throw at the Ick). And a player should be able to make those declarations against an NPC in a veil. But the Gruffs? They're not. They're a low-level mob in the beginning of the story, meaning the GM isn't going into kill mode with them.

[Centarion]

First, what I think of Molly's write up is not relevant to this discussion. I just think that you have a double standard when you say that "Molly, whose best combat option is veils, should be able to survive in combat against 2 fairly tough tough goons without a scratch" and then say  "but she still a very weak character, whose best option is best represented as a 3 shift spell." This implies to me that a party of  characters with nothing but 3 shift actions should be able to beat up on the Gruffs with no problems, which is something Harry can not do.

Second, my method requires me to make one (in my opinion completely valid) interpretation of the rules that is not directly allowed (but is a simple extension of the RAW), but then the action follows directly. Your method basically requires that the GM decide to take it easy on the players. I do not like this. I think that while goons may not think of deviously clever schemes to win a combat, they will almost certainly exploit the situation at hand (like making a perfectly allowable declaration). I also think it is a tad ridiculous that you criticize my method because it allows Molly to be splatted by the Gruffs without them breaking the veil (which is in fact a false claim), but then when I turn the same arguement on your method you defend with "Well, the GM does not have to make him detect her, and could just narrate it away because he is a low-level goon and whatever." By the same token I could just say "Well I have rules for attacking someone I cannot see, but no is there, but since I don't want to hurt you right now, I'll just have him miss."

[Mr. Death]

First, what I think of Molly's write up is not relevant to this discussion. I just think that you have a double standard when you say that "Molly, whose best combat option is veils, should be able to survive in combat against 2 fairly tough tough goons without a scratch"

No. I'm saying "Molly, whose best combat option is veils and puts 3-shifts of effort into it did survive in combat against two goons, therefore a 3-shift veil is enough to not be seen and attacked."

and then say  "but she still a very weak character, whose best option is best represented as a 3 shift spell." This implies to me that a party of  characters with nothing but 3 shift actions should be able to beat up on the Gruffs with no problems, which is something Harry can not do.

Then you're grossly misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the Gruffs are powerless against all three-shift actions. I'm saying they can't beat a three-shift veil reliably with their Alertness scores, and therefore they can't hit Molly.

I am making no such grand pronouncements, so please don't misrepresent my point.

Your method basically requires that the GM decide to take it easy on the players.

No. No it does not, and I explained why already.

I do not like this. I think that while goons may not think of deviously clever schemes to win a combat, they will almost certainly exploit the situation at hand (like making a perfectly allowable declaration).

And again, you are confusing player/GM action with character action. A GM not making the declaration to punish a veil-user by making her ineffective even against low-level goons is not the same as the Gruff being an idiot. It just means that the Gruff did not get that opportunity.

I also think it is a tad ridiculous that you criticize my method because it allows Molly to be splatted by the Gruffs without them breaking the veil (which is in fact a false claim), but then when I turn the same arguement on your method you defend with "Well, the GM does not have to make him detect her, and could just narrate it away because he is a low-level goon and whatever."

Well, actually, I can say exactly that, because your method seemingly obligates or entitles the Gruffs to automatically have Declarations made for them. A declaration is an extra effort made on the part of the player or GM. It is not an entitlement, it is not an obligation, it is an option.

Do you give your lowest-level mooks the full range of consequences too? Because if you're not, you're clearly going easy on your players and dumbing down the enemies.

[UmbraLux]

Perhaps it's worth reiterating that you can only block specific types of actions:  attacks, blocks, maneuvers, and movement.  Just those and nothing else per YS210.  Veils still block one or more of those (often all targeted versions of the actions) - doing so by manipulating perception is just a trapping.  It's a powerful trapping but limited.  If they don't know you're there they're unlikely to attempt attacking after all.  But, once you've given your presence away, it's just another defensive block - with trappings affecting perception.  What you don't get is a D&D style win button of "You can't see me so you can't do anything to me!"  A good thing in my opinion.

Trappings are also important because they affect declarations.  An attacker might use Lore to declare "Illusions won't help against full auto!" while the veiled defender might use Athletics to declare he's "No longer in the same place".  Declarations bring up another point - they often cancel out since they're free actions and can be added to any roll.  (One more reason to put soft limits on declaration use...but that's another issue.)

[Centarion]

I pretty much agree with UmbraLux here.

Pretty much the only difference between what I have been saying this whole time and what he is saying is that the person veiled it getting free declarations of "You can't see me" and maybe "Wide Open Space/Not there anymore" when attacked if applicable, thus increasing the difficulty of the attack, and adding in the mechanical crunch (though I did short cut it for several pages) of requiring a declaration to justify a direct action against a veiled character.

 

[Mr. Death]

And I think veils and illusions used as regular defensive blocks misses the point of using veils and illusions.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Perhaps it's worth reiterating that you can only block specific types of actions:  attacks, blocks, maneuvers, and movement.  Just those and nothing else per YS210.  Veils still block one or more of those (often all targeted versions of the actions) - doing so by manipulating perception is just a trapping.  It's a powerful trapping but limited.  If they don't know you're there they're unlikely to attempt attacking after all.  But, once you've given your presence away, it's just another defensive block - with trappings affecting perception.  What you don't get is a D&D style win button of "You can't see me so you can't do anything to me!"  A good thing in my opinion.

Trappings are also important because they affect declarations.  An attacker might use Lore to declare "Illusions won't help against full auto!" while the veiled defender might use Athletics to declare he's "No longer in the same place".  Declarations bring up another point - they often cancel out since they're free actions and can be added to any roll.  (One more reason to put soft limits on declaration use...but that's another issue.)

And YS276 and YS255.  They specifically state that veils are a special type of block which block detection, and are unlike a normal block.  Specific rule trumps general rule.

The fact that they say "special type of block" and "unlike a normal block" means that they do not behave in the same way as other blocks.  It then talks about them blocking the ability to detect anything under the veil.

A veil is not a win button, and it is not like D&D invisibility.  They behave in a very specific way within this game.  This very specific way is spelled out rather clearly.  Declarations, aspects, and compels exist in this system to deal with specific circumstances. 

The Gruff example could be done as an invocation for effect (allowing them to attack Molly), or as an invocation to notice that someone was hidden under the veil (which, for all intents and purposes could have broken the veil and Molly recast it on her next turn, narratively flavoring it as keeping it up).  And we all know that the books cannot be completely modeled by the RPG.  Jim doesn't write by the rules, and shouldn't.

[Taran]

And YS276 and YS255.  They specifically state that veils are a special type of block which block detection, and are unlike a normal block.  Specific rule trumps general rule.

The fact that they say "special type of block" and "unlike a normal block" means that they do not behave in the same way as other blocks.  It then talks about them blocking the ability to detect anything under the veil.

A veil is not a win button, and it is not like D&D invisibility.  They behave in a very specific way within this game.  This very specific way is spelled out rather clearly.  Declarations, aspects, and compels exist in this system to deal with specific circumstances. 

They are a very special block.  IF you walk into a camp full of enemies with a sheild block, you're likely to be attacked because they see you.  Which is why a veil does not behave like a regular sheild block.  Everyone agrees with this. 
I don't think they SO special as to prevent attacks when you choose to, indirectly or directly make your presense known. 

I can't really say any more than I've already said.  I've re-read this entire thread and I think I've made the point I was trying to make - for better or worse.  My productivity over the last week has plummetted due to this thread. 

[UmbraLux]

And YS276 and YS255.  They specifically state that veils are a special type of block which block detection, and are unlike a normal block. 

I don't have the books available right now but I think that's the same page which states "A block is a block is a block" and points out any element may block damage...it's just the narrative (trappings) which change.

[Mr. Death]

I don't have the books available right now but I think that's the same page which states "A block is a block is a block" and points out any element may block damage...it's just the narrative (trappings) which change.

And as I've pointed out before, the text of the book directly and explicitly says that a veil is a special block that does not block damage. Ergo, it's not included in that "a block is a block is a block" sidebar.

Let's look at the facts here:
A veil has special rules (the half-strength block against the veiler)
A veil is explicitly described as a special block that does not block damage
A veil is described as hiding from detection whatever's under it--i.e., if you don't break the block strength, you don't detect whatever it's hiding
A veil and how it works is described as different, special, alternative form of defense distinct from a shield block.
Molly is described as particularly good at veiling for defense, and is listed as having her veil rote as 3 shifts. When she is shown using her veils for defense, she has not been successfully hit with any attacks.

This tells us two things: One, that veils do not work like shield blocks. Two, however they do work, 3 shifts of power is an effective way to defend yourself against supernatural creatures with significant strength and ability.

So the two sides of the argument seem to boil down to either A. veils work as defense by bypassing the regular attacking skills entirely, instead of butting heads directly against the enemy's apex skill; or B. the text of the book is wrong about its own description of veils and they do block damage, and the book of the book is wrong about its own description of Molly's power level.

I dunno about you, but I'm going to go with the interpretation that doesn't include, "The book is wrong about its own mechanics," twice.

[Centarion]

My interpretation of the rules, which we see in action in post 98, allows a 3 shift veil to be an effective means of defending yourself.

First, the veil is special because since they do not know you are there, they cannot react to you. Second, it is special in the same way a grapple is, while you can beat the block with any action, and thus perform that action, only actions that make sense will actually break it. In this case you can attack someone under a veil, but it will not break the block unless it is an action that is described such that it would. Third, unlike shields, a veil is special because it provides all sorts of fodder for declarations to boost you defense (alternately increase the difficulty of an attack). When used this way, even a 1 shift veil that the opponent does not pierce is an effective defensive tool, because it allows you to make 4+ shifts worth of declarations every time you are attacked (how long they will fail to pierce a 1 shift veil is another matter).

I argue that my interpretation of the rules do in fact make veils very special. I also like the fact that my interpretation  still allows them to function like a normal block (or at least like a defensive version of a grapple), in situations where that makes sense narratively. I do not like that your version makes veils completely different form anything else in the game, and does not in fact make a 3 shift veil effective against a reasonable opponent, and has variable power based solely on the whims of the GM.