But breaking through a mental block is not something done through physical prowess. Think of any athlete who's choked in the big game. Or that episode of BTAS where the Scarecrow is rigging games with his fear toxin.
Then I honestly question the validity of a mental block in the first place. Not everything that keeps someone from doing something has to be a block. If it is powerful enough that it keeps you from continuing the fight, it is a taken out result.
A block is always done as an inhibitor against certain actions. It is not a "mental block" that can only be overcome mentally. That's just not how they work. You might put the mental whammy on someone in order to keep them from doing something, but they don't have to spend an action to overcome the block and then do something. If that was the case, you could keep throwing up blocks and the other guy could not even come close to doing something against you, because he'd have to spend his action overcoming the block first, and in your next action, you renew the block, and it basically keeps going forever. No, you reduce someones effectiveness in some area, and depending on your character, you have different justifications to do so. You can incite him to be afraid of the jump, but he can try it anyway. You might call up a gale of wind that will make the jump harder. But at the end of the day, you are still trying to block his capability to jump.
Yes, but that sort of thing should work in a combat situation, too. If Harry's mindwhammied by Lara in the middle of a fight, can he just use Fists instead of Discipline to overcome it and deck her anyway? Even though he simply does not have the mental reserves to resist her?
If Harry is so mindwhammied by Lara that he can no longer fight, he is taken out and can no longer fight.
Honestly, even the grapple is, in my opinion, too weak in this interpretation. If you think about it, a grapple would do nothing to even slow down a dedicated speedster, even if they're already grabbed. Even someone with Might at 5 and Supernatural strength can't reliably hold onto someone who's got Athletics at 5 and Supernatural speed--even though, by all logic, once the guy who can bench press a car has his hands on you, you shouldn't be able to break his grip.
Again, if you aren't able to break his grip, the fight is over. If you still have a chance to break free, then you should be able to break free by any means at your disposal. The increased chance to take someone out in a grapple is easily represented by the increased stress someone with supernatural strength can inflict in a grapple.
Not really. That was just a random example of what I'm talking about--and it doesn't end the conflict (if there even is a conflict--maybe it's a race to the macguffin on the next rooftop), it just keeps the guy from moving on. As I said about veils there are other options--in this case, the mental block is a fear of heights, not a fear of decking the vampire in the teeth, or shooting the vampire (which, if successful, would get rid of the block).
If the whole scene is based on the two opponents chasing each other, and suddenly one of them can't move on, the fight is over. At least that's how I see it. Like I said, if it isn't a conflict, then it is probably a contest, and you don't even have blocks in a contest.
The point I'm trying to make is, with your interpretation, it's near impossible to block someone from using their apex skill, unless your own applicable skill is so high that you can just rely on defending anyway. To my reading, there should be a way to come at someone sideways so that they can't just blow through everything in a fight with their highest skill.
You can put up a block for someone who isn't good at defending themselves. And you can use skills to put up a block that you might not be able to use to defend yourself. Both excellent reasons to use blocks.
You can come at someone sideways, blocks just aren't the way to do it, that's what maneuvers are for.
She can't do all of that at once, though. If Molly casts a block, that's her turn--and if the gruffs can just swing wildly and reliably hit her, then that's a wasted turn, because her veil is down, in your interpretation.
She can do so in subsequent exchanges, and with equal skills, there is enough of a chance she comes out ok, as was the case.
But the point is, in the write up of veils as a special block, as I recall, it specifically calls it out as a way to avoid damage even if you don't have a lot of power to throw around. Using veils in your interpretation reduces it back to straight up power-vs-power, which I feel is missing the point of a veil.
I didn't say it ever made you invincible--it reduces the opponent's options, and makes it so you can't be directly attacked. I listed three or four ways up above that a smart opponent can still attack and root you out even if you're invisible.
It is a special block, if you are outside a conflict and want to stay that way. In that case, you veil, and every guard or whatever has to beat your veil before a conflict can even start. But once that's done, it is no more viable than any other sort of block. A very high numbered veil doesn't have to be by a very powerful wizard. Even if Molly had Conviction 5, she'd still have the aspect "subtlety is its own power", which should limit what kinds of spells she does.
But the really big part is the one I highlighted. Reducing someones options is pretty much exactly what a compel does. So if you want to do a veil that actually limits your opponents options, I think it is better to do it as a maneuver and invoke it for effect. "I am veiled, they can't see me, so they attack someone else".
This would probably explain the fight with the Ick as well. She creates the aspect, and then she spends some fate points on it to be veiled again and taunt the Ick so it would let go of Harry.
OR, mechanically what she did was a block to shield Harry and herself from the Ick. That would account for both the taunting and the invisibility, and she could have easily boosted the spell with fate points and consequences to make it work.
Once again, the rulebooks specifically and explicitly note veils as not working like regular blocks against damage.
Can you point me to that? I can't find anything about it under the paragraph about veils.
Under your interpretation, Molly should be dead a few times over. She's always been, up to Ghost Story, specifically noted as someone who doesn't have a lot of raw power to throw around, so there's no way she should've been able to hold off the Ick, or dozens of Red Court warriors at once if they could all just roll Fists to break through her veils and illusions.
Molly's grown quite a bit until Changes and might have gotten a few points of refresh and definitely skills. Also, I feel like that particular scene is more plot device than actual gameplay. On the other hand, Molly could simply be doing a "one woman rave" maneuver for Thomas to tag, when he is making a weapons block, since they are working together to keep the vamps back.
And even so, if it was a maneuver? They'd defend with Discipline. If it's an attack? Defend with discipline. But if it's a block, they can beat it with Athletics?
Yes, because you are doing different things. You could have discipline restrict athletics here, but having to spend an action in order to break free is just too much. Now again, you could put up an aspect, and the other one could feel the need to remove the aspect before he jumps. Or you could downright compel him to do so. But that's not what blocks are for.
In the last thread discussing veils, I proposed something that my opponents never commented on. How about this: If you must allow someone to attack despite not being able to see through the block, treat it like a reverse ambush. If the gruff can't see Molly, but wants to swing wildly until he can hit her, then he's attacking from 0, while Molly uses her regular defense roll. She can see him and avoid him, while he can't see her, and thus can't really aim his strikes.
How does that sound to you, Haru?
Still sounds like it should be a maneuver and the compel reduces the skill to 0. I still don't like that approach, because it just isn't really balanced. You could do a 1 shift veil against someone with a Legendary skill and a stunt, and he would just flail his arms around? Just seems weird.
The great strength about being able to veil is that you can choose when and who to fight. But if you are in the middle of a fight, you don't have access to those most powerful aspects of your arsenal, and you are going to have to improvise and have a hard time.
TL,DR:My main point, I think is that only if it looks like a block, it doesn't have to be a block.