Veils

[Centarion]

The characters in the books are almost universally more powerful (especially by the point we see Molly) than any character at the YS refresh levels, even Molly (at the time of Small Favor) is at least 10-11 refresh. And OW almost universally low-balls the power levels of most things, also mechanically, conviction is much more important for non-attack magic than it is for attack magic, a 3 conviction 5 discipline caster is much better at attacking than a 3 discipline 5 conviction caster, so I would not put too much stock into that. 

Flailing blindly to find someone is not a focused attack. It might pierce the veil, but letting anyone use their apex skill to pierce a veil is nearly as bad as allowing stunts to always use the apex skill to dodge.

No one is piercing any veils without some sort of perception roll, even if they flail/spray and prey and hit, this still does not pierce the veil (though a consequence involving bleeding may help them). One does not need a focused attack to inflict stress. That is the beauty of the stress system and the narrative structure of DFRPG, you don't have to hit them to do "damage,"  you don't even necessarily have to be close.

So what's the point of a veil, then, if it's going to act exactly, mechanically, like a shield block? What's the point of hiding from sight if it's not going to actually be a different effect?

A veil is much better than a block defensively under my interpretation.  First, it prevents people from attacking you if they do not already know you are there. Sine if they don't know someone is there, they can't attack. It only starts to behave like a shield at all once they notice signs of your presence besides actually seeing/smelling/hearing you(by sensing something that the veil explicitly does not block). Second, once they know you exist, they still have to choose where to attack. This is a huge advantage, especially in open spaces, since you can sprint, and the can only move 1 zone and attack (normally). Further, each passing turn the number of zones you could occupy increases dramatically. Third, the veil can only be pierced by perception skills, which are often much lower than attack skills, so it is better than a shield this way as well (as it can "reduce damage" from multiple hits, and not just vanish once overcome by 1 attack).

No one is negating anything, I just prefer to allow characters and NPC's to take actions, even if they are not likely to succeed (on the off chance that they do), instead of completely disallowing them.  Also, this is the way I think the writers intended veils to work, because it is mostly how other blocks work. There are no other blocks in the game that prevent a class of actions and cannot be pierced by those actions.

As we have stated multiple times, I think it is reasonable for most creatures/characters to be able to attack the open space where they think you are. They may look crazy, they may pick the wrong zone, they may take a huge circumstance penalty, but at least they can try. I can have a burst fire weapon (take a G3 rifle for example) and reasonably expect to hit about 1/4-1/3 of a zone in an action (one or 2 bursts), similarly, I could swing one of those huge troll swords and cover half my living room (especially if I was a 9 foot tall troll with long arms). And anything either of these actions hit could consider themselves "attacked," at least enough to cause stress getting out of the way.

Sometimes there is a convenient can of paint, or you have a bag of dust, and sometimes it makes sense to declare that stuff. But most of the time, for most enemies especially, it makes no sense. I do not like to depend on tricks t make anything happen, especially with mooks like guards. Creative and interesting tricks are usually reserved for the plays, and sometimes the smart villains.

Anyway I am done arguing, nothing you say is convincing me and you seem to be saying the same thing over and over and "not specifically answering" most of my responses, instead choosing only certain parts to argue. I also do not seem to be able to convince you. So there is no point continuing.

[Mr. Death]

The characters in the books are almost universally more powerful (especially by the point we see Molly) than any character at the YS refresh levels, even Molly (at the time of Small Favor) is at least 10-11 refresh. And OW almost universally low-balls the power levels of most things, also mechanically, conviction is much more important for non-attack magic than it is for attack magic, a 3 conviction 5 discipline caster is much better at attacking than a 3 discipline 5 conviction caster, so I would not put too much stock into that.

This isn't a failing of the book or the system, it's the result of the player mindset--we put everything we're going to use as high as we can, so 3 isn't "good" anymore in that mindset, when it really should be. This inflation seriously skews how we look at the game.

No one is piercing any veils without some sort of perception roll, even if they flail/spray and prey and hit, this still does not pierce the veil (though a consequence involving bleeding may help them). One does not need a focused attack to inflict stress. That is the beauty of the stress system and the narrative structure of DFRPG, you don't have to hit them to do "damage,"  you don't even necessarily have to be close.

Well, yes, it does pierce the veil. If you make contact with something, you know where it is, and the veil's broken.

Second, once they know you exist, they still have to choose where to attack This is a huge advantage, especially in open spaces, since you can sprint, and the can only move 1 zone and attack (normally).

And entirely meaningless if you're in a one-zone combat, or if there's a barrier.

Third, the veil can only be pierced by perception skills, which are often much lower than attack skills, so it is better than a shield this way as well (as it can "reduce damage" from multiple hits, and not just vanish once overcome by 1 attack).

Well, no. By your reading, a 4-shift veil is exactly the same as a 4-shift shield spell. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the Alertness roll works or not, because the badguy gets an immediate reroll to hit something that the dice just said he can't even find.

No one is negating anything, I just prefer to allow characters and NPC's to take actions, even if they are not likely to succeed (on the off chance that they do), instead of completely disallowing them.  Also, this is the way I think the writers intended veils to work, because it is mostly how other blocks work. There are no other blocks in the game that prevent a class of actions and cannot be pierced by those actions.

Actually, a lot of blocks would. A block against movement from one zone to the other would prevent all melee attacks to that second zone, and a melee attack wouldn't break that block. A mental grapple type block would prevent all kinds of physical actions that couldn't break the block.

If you need to be able to take a specific action in order to do other actions, and that specific action is blocked, then yes, those other actions are blocked too.

Here's a thought. Maybe, sometimes, the veil just freaking works. You don't have to make the PCs take stress when they've taken prudent steps to make sure they won't be perceived and attacked in the first place. I know I, personally, would not like it one bit if I went to the trouble of making sure I wasn't seen at all, and couldn't be found by my attackers, and they got to attack me anyway.

Again: What's the point of a veil if they still get to hit you?

As we have stated multiple times, I think it is reasonable for most creatures/characters to be able to attack the open space where they think you are. They may look crazy, they may pick the wrong zone, they may take a huge circumstance penalty, but at least they can try. I can have a burst fire weapon (take a G3 rifle for example) and reasonably expect to hit about 1/4-1/3 of a zone in an action (one or 2 bursts), similarly, I could swing one of those huge troll swords and cover half my living room (especially if I was a 9 foot tall troll with long arms). And anything either of these actions hit could consider themselves "attacked," at least enough to cause stress getting out of the way.

Yeah, they can try. That's, essentially, the Alertness roll. They might maneuver with Weapons or Guns to boost that roll, but if they don't make the Alertness roll, then they can't find you. And if they can't find you, they don't hit you.

How are you going to spray that much of a zone without hitting your allies, whether you're spraying machinegun fire or swinging a massive arm?

Sometimes there is a convenient can of paint, or you have a bag of dust, and sometimes it makes sense to declare that stuff. But most of the time, for most enemies especially, it makes no sense. I do not like to depend on tricks t make anything happen, especially with mooks like guards. Creative and interesting tricks are usually reserved for the plays, and sometimes the smart villains.

So you're saying if the guards aren't creative, there's nothing to give the veiler away, and it "makes no sense" for those tricks to come into play, the person under a veil should still get attacked?

I mean, do you have something against the ideas of the PCs just plain succeeding in this situation? What is wrong with the PCs' actually working?

Your argument seems to stem from the idea that, even under a veil, the person has to take some kind of stress, and the goons have to be able to succeed in hitting them.

Say you're looking for clues in a room. You think maybe someone hid something in there. Your investigation roll and alertness rolls fail. Can you then roll Guns to find it? Or Weapons?

Edit: I should have clarified. When I say I'm not specifically answering something, more often than not it's because I don't find anything objectionable about it to respond to.

[Centarion]

One more try, since I still think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I am saying (or maybe just being intentionally dense?).

This isn't a failing of the book or the system, it's the result of the player mindset--we put everything we're going to use as high as we can, so 3 isn't "good" anymore in that mindset, when it really should be. This inflation seriously skews how we look at the game.

3 is actually good, I agree. But Molly is described at being more than good with a veil.

Well, yes, it does pierce the veil. If you make contact with something, you know where it is, and the veil's broken.
And entirely meaningless if you're in a one-zone combat, or if there's a barrier.

No, it doesn't. I am the one making this interpretation, and I explicitly stated (multiple times) that it doesn't. You do not have to make contact with something to produce stress, or even consequences (as I also have said multiple times). So you can swing your sword, in my general vicinity, and cause stress, but that does not mean you hit me, grazed me, or got any other indication that you were close, it could just be that I had to expend a lot of energy avoiding you. Even if you did hit me, that does not mean you know where I am next round. Since the veil is a block against perception, the only skills capable of piercing it are perception skills.

Further if you are in a one zone combat, or a fenced in space, it makes sense veiling yourself from someone who knows you are there isnt all that helpful in avoiding their attacks.

Well, no. By your reading, a 4-shift veil is exactly the same as a 4-shift shield spell. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the Alertness roll works or not, because the badguy gets an immediate reroll to hit something that the dice just said he can't even find.

No false. It appears you read exactly 1/3 of the detailed differences I outlined and then just decided to ignore the rest. If the bad guy does not know you are there (fails an alertness roll), he does not get to just attack for no reason. It is only after you reveal your presence somehow, like a failed stealth roll when opening a door/taking an object, or if you attack that the opponent can react to your presence in any way. Second, as I already addressed, a successful attack does not break a veil, so it is better that way as well.

Of course if you are already in combat when you veil up, it is very similar to a shield. It is not some sort of super shield that is going to take them multiple actions (worth of maneuvering) to break through. And it shouldn't be one. Veils are not supposed to be better than shields in combat. We never (in the books) see a character veil up after already being spotted. When Molly wants to defend herself mid combat she uses illusionary clones.  Further, the description of the fight with the gruffs supports my interpretation (they get to try to attack her, they just happen to miss).

Actually, a lot of blocks would. A block against movement from one zone to the other would prevent all melee attacks to that second zone, and a melee attack wouldn't break that block. A mental grapple type block would prevent all kinds of physical actions that couldn't break the block. If you need to be able to take a specific action in order to do other actions, and that specific action is blocked, then yes, those other actions are blocked too.

The first block we have already discussed. A block against movement into a zone would prevent mele range attacks against a target in that zone for a character not in that zone. Fine. But only because it explicitly states in the rules that you have to be in the same zone to mele attack someone. No where does it say you have to be able to see someone to attack them. For the second block, I would say that if you beat the block strength of a mental grapple with your attack roll you get to attack (this represents your attack/will to attack being strong enough to overcome the grapple). Just like if you are in a real grapple you can break it by casting a spell. If someone complained about that I would say that if you intended to make the block only breakable by certain skills, those are the only skills you should have blocked. 

Here's a thought. Maybe, sometimes, the veil just freaking works. You don't have to make the PCs take stress when they've taken prudent steps to make sure they won't be perceived and attacked in the first place. I know I, personally, would not like it one bit if I went to the trouble of making sure I wasn't seen at all, and couldn't be found by my attackers, and they got to attack me anyway.

Yes, most of the time a veil will just work (or have one opposed alertness roll, likely a failure). But when the character decides to take an action that gives themselves away, they have made a choice to be noticed (or at least potentially be noticed), and if they are, then the enemy can attack in their direction, even if they cannot see them.

Again: What's the point of a veil if they still get to hit you?
Yeah, they can try. That's, essentially, the Alertness roll. They might maneuver with Weapons or Guns to boost that roll, but if they don't make the Alertness roll, then they can't find you. And if they can't find you, they don't hit you.

The point is, that veils are not supposed to be the most potent shield type spell ever against most bad guys (the ones with higher attack than perception skills, so almost all of them). The point of a veil is to avoid detection in the first place. Once you somehow are detected (but not seen, and have not had your veil pierced), the veil is not also physical immunity with a catch of people with huge alertness rolls or tons of time to waste.

How are you going to spray that much of a zone without hitting your allies, whether you're spraying machinegun fire or swinging a massive arm?
So you're saying if the guards aren't creative, there's nothing to give the veiler away, and it "makes no sense" for those tricks to come into play, the person under a veil should still get attacked?

Maybe you allies are not in that zone? Maybe they are not in that part of the zone. The fact that you don't hit them is what makes it not a zone attack (which would ignore the veil altogether).

I am saying that if you give yourself away to the guards in an obvious way, they are likely to start shooting, even if they do not see you. And you may (or may not since they have circumstance penalties and have to beat your fairly high block) get hit/grazed/have to roll awkwardly to avoid getting hit.

I mean, do you have something against the ideas of the PCs just plain succeeding in this situation? What is wrong with the PCs' actually working?

Your argument seems to stem from the idea that, even under a veil, the person has to take some kind of stress, and the goons have to be able to succeed in hitting them.

No, my argument stems from the fact that the character under the veil did something to give themselves away. Be that opening a door or stealing something unstealthily  (failing an opposed stealth vs. alertness check), walking through a pool of water, or attacking. Really, it is mostly about attacking. If you attack the guards from under the veil, they get to attack back. It may be hard for them, but they get to try. Note that my rules still make it very hard for the goons to actually hit them, since they have to beat a (likely) 4-6 strength block with a -2 to -4 penalty. It may not even be tactically correct for them to attack (instead trying to maneuver or something to see you), but some dumb guards may just start shooting. Most of the time this produces results similar to your method, they just miss, but sometimes they will get lucky (or if the guards are Kincaid, maybe the get lucky a lot, as they should).

Say you're looking for clues in a room. You think maybe someone hid something in there. Your investigation roll and alertness rolls fail. Can you then roll Guns to find it? Or Weapons?

Well, if the thing is the size of a person, rolling guns may not let you find it, but it may let you shoot it (and still not be able to see it). I don't know why you would want to do that though. Unless the thing you were trying to find was actually an intruder and you really didn't care about finding it, and wanted to kill it instead.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Can  we keep things civil, please? Calling each other names will get this thread locked.

Personally, I agree with Mr. Death. While Stress does not necessarily represent damage from a narrative standpoint, it does mechanically. If you allow an enemy to inflict stress even though they can't detect you, you're effectively penalizing success, which is obviously wrong.

I think you're underestimating the size of a zone here. While a zone can be a small bedroom, it can also be half a warehouse. No matter how big your sword is, you're not going to hit someone by randomly swinging it around in an open space. Maybe we should adjudicate this depending on the size of the zone. Randomly swinging your weapon in someone's kitchen probably would hit an invisible person, but doing the same thing when the zone is one third of a football pitch is only going to make you look like a fool.

Also, a more practical method that already exists is to pick up dust, paint etc. and use that to pierce the veil.

[Mr. Death]

I'm going by what we see in the books, and how veils are described in the RPG.

Multiple times, Molly only veils after the shit is flying--several times, after she herself has directly gotten the enemy's attention in melee combat. Each of those times, Molly has come off without so much as a hair mussed--the only time the enemy's ever made meaningful contact was with a jar of paint, and that didn't even slow her down for more than a second.

By your reading, Molly throwing snowballs at the Gruffs should have ended with Molly seriously injured (Gruffs, as I recall, have Good or better attack skill, claws, and inhuman strength--any kind of hit against Molly's veiled form would be a consequence, and it only escalates from there). Molly directly taunting the Ick and then veiling should have ended with her dead--it likely has Inhuman Speed, so doesn't get the penalty for movement, it likely has claws and Supernatural Strength, and she was telling him which zone she was in. Neither of these happened.

Ergo, going by our major canonical example of someone using veils in combat in the books, the evidence indicates that the veil prevents her from being meaningfully targeted at all. And that's what I'm talking about, using veils in combat, because we agree on the use of a veil up to that point.

Yes, once the veiler does something that grabs attention, the goons should get another alertness roll, probably with a bonus for whatever got their attention, or a lowered difficulty for figuring it out. They should not, however, be immediately able to directly target and attack someone with their apex skill if they do not pierce the veil. With your reading, you're letting them skip right from, "Huh, there was a noise" to "There's an intruder right over there, attack!" without having to pierce the veil at all.

That's what a successful Alertness check against the veil means: They realize someone or something is there. A failed Alertness check against the veil means they don't know someone is there, or they don't know where someone is. If they don't know someone is there, how can they attack them?

The way I see it is, the "Huh, what was that noise?" is an aspect the goons can tag to boost their alertness roll. Them checking and blowing the Alertness roll means they conclude that there's nobody there, or they can't find the person they thought they saw. You get the full attack when you can confirm there's a target at all in spitting distance.

To me, the "There is definitely an intruder here in this general direction" is the result of a successful Alertness roll. Otherwise, the goons don't know where to point their guns or swing their knives, and without that successful Alertness roll, they're pointing in the wrong place by default.

Maybe they can spray bullets as a maneuver to help reveal the intruder (by, at the least, establishing where they are not). Maybe they swing their arms as a maneuver, like Harry checking where Molly is in SmF by tossing a jar at the empty corner. But they shouldn't get the full value of an attack if they don't know for sure where the person is, and that's my bottom line.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Stuff

I quite agree. Although, for me, The progression goes: Goons are unaware -> Goons fail alertness roll -> Goons are unaware -> Veiled combatant attacks (with Ambush rules) -> Goons get another Alertness roll, maybe tagging a temporary Aspect like 'It came from over there!', depending on the action -> Goons fail roll -> They can't attack the veiled combatant directly this exchange, but they can spend their exchange making an Investigation/Lore roll to pierce the veil, maneuver to throw paint/dust, or make Zone attacks.

[Taran]

I think you're underestimating the size of a zone here. While a zone can be a small bedroom, it can also be half a warehouse. No matter how big your sword is, you're not going to hit someone by randomly swinging it around in an open space. Maybe we should adjudicate this depending on the size of the zone. Randomly swinging your weapon in someone's kitchen probably would hit an invisible person, but doing the same thing when the zone is one third of a football pitch is only going to make you look like a fool.

Also, a more practical method that already exists is to pick up dust, paint etc. and use that to pierce the veil.

A zone is whatever you want it to be.  I'd break a football feild up into multiple zones.  That's beside the point though.  Throwing a can of paint or dust in a zone the size of a football feild isn't going to net you much. Also remember that scene aspects can be defended against.  If you use guns to do a "trajectory" maneuver to triangulate where that last fireball came from, the wizard could use althletics to defend.  "I WAS over there when I fired the fireball...but now I'm over here."  Assuming the zone is the size of half a football feild, you don't need to cross borders to be no-where close to the origin of your last casting. 
 
Now, while that last comment hinders my own arguments, I'm writing it to point out that having a veiled person that can attack without breaking a veil and yet cannot be attacked is over-powered - especially when maneuvers (that can be defended against) are your only recourse.  The reason I like using the block method is because I feel it's more balanced.  I'd be more willing to say that you can't attack someone, as long as they cannot attack back without breaking the veil - which, I beleive, is how Mr. Death plays it.  At least this is balanced.

[Centarion]

During both the fight with the Gruffs, and the fight with the Ick,  the monster made a move to attack her. In both cases, they missed. Her veil strength (by Small Favor) is at least a 5, possibly higher (specialization on veil power, and maybe a focus item), so it is totally feasible that with a -2 (or higher) penalty they did not reach a 5 (or even without one). The veil certainly presents a negative circumstance for your opponent whenever the fact that he cannot see you would hinder him (ie. you are not restricted to a small area or similar).

Well, first I would require alertness to notice the noise, this would also likely double as their roll against the veil. So piercing a strong veil may have a difficulty of 6, but hearing the noise may be a difficulty of [insert stealth check hear]. It is totally reasonable for them to hear a noise, decide it is an intruder (especially if they are touchy clued in guards), and know which way to point their guns. The fact that they cannot see their target may impose a penalty (maybe a really large one if you judge there are multiple circumstances hurting them, like Invisible Target and Large Space) but it shouldn't stop them from trying to shoot. They got a successful alertness roll (against a difficulty of, say, 3 which is good), to know there is an intruder over there, but they did not beat the veil strength. If they failed the first alertness roll they wouldn't even get the chance to act since they would be on coffee break (or pointing in the other direction, or whatever).

I do not think it is penalizing success to let an opponent that somehow succeeds at beating you veil strength with some sort of penalty inflict some minor injury/stress as you scramble out of the way. I think it would be penalizing success to say that a goon that hears you cannot shoot in your general direction. Again, this is likely not the optimal choice, the optimal choice is to declare a bucket of dust and chuck it and roll alertness again. But most goons in my games are not that smart. In the situation of a zone the size of half a football field, you would likely suffer -2 from Invisible Target, -2 from Open Space, and maybe another -2 from Really Large Space, of course it isn't effective and you look like a loon, but that never stopped cops in movies form shooting at a car speeding away with their handgun at 200 feet (likely also a -6 penalty, for extreme distance, poor tools, and moving target).

My bottom line is that you do not need high enough perception to pierce a 6 shift veil to see a door swing open, or hear a breaking twig, and once you do nothing is stopping you from at least trying to shoot the source of that disturbance.

I will say that this attempt may not be successful, and unless the fact that the target is invisible poses no hinderence (like if they are in a closet) to the attack it is likely an abject failure. In light of that it looks like our bottom lines are actually not the far apart, we both agree that that if oyu don't know where someone is, and that will hurt your attempt to hit them, then you don't get to attack at full value.   

I think you are going about this from a "you can't attack unless you have a good reason, and if you do you should invoke an aspect for effect" viewpoint while I am going about it from a "you can always fire your gun/swing your sword,  but when you don't know where your target is you have to get really lucky to succeed" viewpoint. 

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Uh, what kind of guards are you running that immediately progress from "I heard a twig snap!" to "GRAAGH INTRUDER DAKKADAKKADAKKA!"? 

I like the imposition of difficulty penalties, but I think that if the veil is not pierced, then the goons should be re-rolling Alertness each turn to detect the veiled combatant. If they can't detect the invisible enemy, then they take their action as normal, doing whatever, and can either still attack with another -2 on top of the other -2s (which should still apply) or should not be able to attack

I also think that you shouldn't be able to do this with Weapons or Fists unless the zone is really small (or you should face extra penalties, like 'Trying to punch a field').

[Centarion]

If the zone is a room small sized room and you have a semi auto and fire 5 or 6 shots, then you likely get a -2 penalty in the same circumstance weapons or fists likely gets a -4 penalty (for both invisible target and the room being larger than the space you can cover).  In a football field sized zone weapons or fists would likely be impossible, unless the alertness roll/other factor that made them aware of something amiss gave them much more detail than "that way." (For example, this could be an alertness roll of 5 to see a character with a stealth of 3 and a 6 shift veil pick something up a few feet away, this would allow a mele attack at around -2 or -4 depending on how well they pinpointed the location). The amount of -2's should be dependent on how unlikely you are to hit/how many circumstances are hindering you.

There are plenty of instances of guards with itchy trigger fingers or guards with orders to shoot intruders on sight when dealing with paranoid supernaturals.

[Mr. Death]

A zone is whatever you want it to be.  I'd break a football feild up into multiple zones.  That's beside the point though.  Throwing a can of paint or dust in a zone the size of a football feild isn't going to net you much. Also remember that scene aspects can be defended against.  If you use guns to do a "trajectory" maneuver to triangulate where that last fireball came from, the wizard could use althletics to defend.  "I WAS over there when I fired the fireball...but now I'm over here."  Assuming the zone is the size of half a football feild, you don't need to cross borders to be no-where close to the origin of your last casting.

Thing is, you're generally using a veil (or any kind of magic, really) to defend because your athletics either isn't up to the task, or you're not willing to risk the roll. So the wizard having to defend the maneuver with athletics is still going to be to the advantage of the attacker.
 

Now, while that last comment hinders my own arguments, I'm writing it to point out that having a veiled person that can attack without breaking a veil and yet cannot be attacked is over-powered - especially when maneuvers (that can be defended against) are your only recourse.  The reason I like using the block method is because I feel it's more balanced.  I'd be more willing to say that you can't attack someone, as long as they cannot attack back without breaking the veil - which, I beleive, is how Mr. Death plays it.  At least this is balanced.

As we've said, maneuvers are not the only recourse. Declarations, scene maneuvers, and zone attacks will all either hit someone with a veil, and declaring "They threw a fireball, that's going to make them real noticeable" is perfectly valid.

Generally, yes, I tend to have making direct attacks end a veil, or at least provide a bonus to anyone looking to spot the person through the veil, on the basis that a veil at least partially depends on the person not making themselves too noticeable.

During both the fight with the Gruffs, and the fight with the Ick,  the monster made a move to attack her. In both cases, they missed. Her veil strength (by Small Favor) is at least a 5, possibly higher (specialization on veil power, and maybe a focus item), so it is totally feasible that with a -2 (or higher) penalty they did not reach a 5 (or even without one). The veil certainly presents a negative circumstance for your opponent whenever the fact that he cannot see you would hinder him (ie. you are not restricted to a small area or similar).

Well, no. Molly's write-up is explicitly in the Small Favor time frame, and her veil rote is explicitly three shifts, and she has no focus item listed. So please stop trying to argue that she's throwing around hugely powerful veils when it's explicitly not the case.

Well, first I would require alertness to notice the noise, this would also likely double as their roll against the veil. So piercing a strong veil may have a difficulty of 6, but hearing the noise may be a difficulty of [insert stealth check hear]. It is totally reasonable for them to hear a noise, decide it is an intruder (especially if they are touchy clued in guards), and know which way to point their guns. The fact that they cannot see their target may impose a penalty (maybe a really large one if you judge there are multiple circumstances hurting them, like Invisible Target and Large Space) but it shouldn't stop them from trying to shoot. They got a successful alertness roll (against a difficulty of, say, 3 which is good), to know there is an intruder over there, but they did not beat the veil strength. If they failed the first alertness roll they wouldn't even get the chance to act since they would be on coffee break (or pointing in the other direction, or whatever).

So in addition to throwing out these high-powered veils, the person also has to have high stealth rolls to remain undetected, even though--in all likelihood--they're using the veils because they don't have good stealth rolls? And these are guards somehow know that the noise they heard is definitely an intruder, and can just start shooting immediately (despite probably not wanting to shoot up whatever the hell it is they're guarding)?

When you're using a veil, you're using it to replace the stealth roll. It should never be, "Okay, you made a successful veil. Now, roll your basement-level stealth skill to make sure it actually works."

This is, again, all a lot more complicated than just "Does the veil work? If yes, they don't shoot at you. If no, they know where you are."

I do not think it is penalizing success to let an opponent that somehow succeeds at beating you veil strength with some sort of penalty inflict some minor injury/stress as you scramble out of the way.

Except they don't. The alertness roll fails--which means they did not beat the veil strength.

I think it would be penalizing success to say that a goon that hears you cannot shoot in your general direction.

And them not beating the veil strength means they don't detect you--don't see you, don't hear you, don't know where you are. That's what the veil strength means--as above, it's a wholesale replacement of the stealth roll.

Again, this is likely not the optimal choice, the optimal choice is to declare a bucket of dust and chuck it and roll alertness again. But most goons in my games are not that smart.

Then, as before, maybe that means that they just plain fail. Why do the goons have to succeed in piercing the veil and attacking, even though the caster has done everything right?

In the situation of a zone the size of half a football field, you would likely suffer -2 from Invisible Target, -2 from Open Space, and maybe another -2 from Really Large Space, of course it isn't effective and you look like a loon, but that never stopped cops in movies form shooting at a car speeding away with their handgun at 200 feet (likely also a -6 penalty, for extreme distance, poor tools, and moving target).

Again, a lot more cumbersome and complicated than, you know, the veil just working to make sure the person isn't a target in the first place.

My bottom line is that you do not need high enough perception to pierce a 6 shift veil to see a door swing open, or hear a breaking twig, and once you do nothing is stopping you from at least trying to shoot the source of that disturbance.

Agreed--but all of those should either be declarations to boost Alertness rolls, or outright compels to have the veil fail. Without the successful Alertness check, the goons shouldn't have any idea where the person is--that is the whole purpose of a veil, to remain undetected, not just unseen.

I will say that this attempt may not be successful, and unless the fact that the target is invisible poses no hinderence (like if they are in a closet) to the attack it is likely an abject failure. In light of that it looks like our bottom lines are actually not the far apart, we both agree that that if oyu don't know where someone is, and that will hurt your attempt to hit them, then you don't get to attack at full value.   

I think you are going about this from a "you can't attack unless you have a good reason, and if you do you should invoke an aspect for effect" viewpoint while I am going about it from a "you can always fire your gun/swing your sword,  but when you don't know where your target is you have to get really lucky to succeed" viewpoint. 

I think we do agree on the flavor text angle of it--where we differ are the mechanics. You're suggesting that someone should have a substantial, successful attack despite not being able to break the target's block against being attacked.

Remember, a veil isn't a block against just being seen. It's a block against being perceived. Failing to account for sound and other senses are aspects of a veil you can declare or assess to boost the alertness roll--but without actually passing the veil's strength with that alertness roll, that means the person being veiled is still hidden from the person doing the snooping.

If the guards are able to conclude, "There is someone here, and we know within a few feet of where he is," that means they made the Alertness check.

If the zone is a room small sized room and you have a semi auto and fire 5 or 6 shots, then you likely get a -2 penalty in the same circumstance weapons or fists likely gets a -4 penalty (for both invisible target and the room being larger than the space you can cover).  In a football field sized zone weapons or fists would likely be impossible, unless the alertness roll/other factor that made them aware of something amiss gave them much more detail than "that way." (For example, this could be an alertness roll of 5 to see a character with a stealth of 3 and a 6 shift veil pick something up a few feet away, this would allow a mele attack at around -2 or -4 depending on how well they pinpointed the location). The amount of -2's should be dependent on how unlikely you are to hit/how many circumstances are hindering you.

See above about how assigning a bunch of penalties and bonuses is just a lot more work than "veil works or veil doesn't work."

There are plenty of instances of guards with itchy trigger fingers or guards with orders to shoot intruders on sight when dealing with paranoid supernaturals.

Yes, but those guards aren't on the inside, where shooting wildly around will, at best, destroy a lot of stuff or, at worst, kill a bunch of people the guards don't actually want to kill.

Shooting wildly to find someone while you're inside a building is, quite frankly, among the stupidest things you can do with a gun.

[Centarion]

Well, no. Molly's write-up is explicitly in the Small Favor time frame, and her veil rote is explicitly three shifts, and she has no focus item listed. So please stop trying to argue that she's throwing around hugely powerful veils when it's explicitly not the case.

Unless I am mistaken (and feel free to point it out if I am), Molly's write up does not say what time period it is from. I interpret this to mean it is he stat block at the earliest point she enters the story (because that is how Harry and Murphy and Michael are done). Which means it represents Molly before/at the start of Proven Guilty, before she had any training from Harry. Between the beginning of Proven Guilty and Small Favor she receives about 1-2 years of training, and participates in 2 large scale adventures. It then stands to reason that Harry helped her hone her skills (especially in veils, which he also improves at over this time because of the teaching) and helps her with foci (like McCoy did for him). She could easily be capable of 5 shift Veils by Small Favor, and more by Changes/Ghost Story. So while it may not be her stats as they are in OW (which, for almost all characters are universally considered to be on the low end anyway), it certainly isn't an explicit contradiction.

So in addition to throwing out these high-powered veils, the person also has to have high stealth rolls to remain undetected

What I meant by that section was that if you do something likely to let them detect you, you get to roll stealth to conceal it, and they get to roll alertness to see/hear it. I do not mean that just walking around while Veiled you have to roll Stealth to remain unheard. What I do mean is that if you try to open a door while veiled, you roll stealth to try to do it stealthily, and anyone who could see it rolls alertness. Or, if you walk over a patch of bubble wrap or something, you have to roll stealth. A veil may hide your footsteps, or breathing, but I do not think they are designed to stop all sound from leaving your area (and if they were, you would likely not be able to hear while veiled). I may allow a player to choose that option, if they know they are going to be walking through dense/dry underbrush, or on bubble wrap, but then they will also suffer from the block on any effort to eavesdrop.

Under normal veil circumstances (you put it up beforehand, then you go spy), it just works, as you describe (alertness vs. veil, if they fail you are completely undetected). It is only when you choose to make risky moves that any of this comes up. I think it is fair that in order to steal things while invisible from under the noses of the guard you need to be stealthy as well as veiled. Gotta let a character actually built for stealth/burglary shine sometimes and not let the wizard just win at everything.

Except they don't. The alertness roll fails--which means they did not beat the veil strength.

Their alertness roll failed, which means they get a -2/-4/whatever penalty to their roll, and have to roll against a block way higher than your likely defense skill, and they still don't pierce the veil. That is pretty harsh. You are getting a pretty good deal here (way better than a shield on defense).

The veil certainly can be a replacement of the stealth roll, when it applies. When normally moving about, it does. When opening a door, it does not. I don't think anyone would argue that your veil makes it more difficult for a guard to notice a door opening on it's own (though the lack of a person there may make them less alert, maybe another application of circumstance penalties/bonuses, or aspect tags on I'm Invisible).

Then, as before, maybe that means that they just plain fail. Why do the goons have to succeed in piercing the veil and attacking, even though the caster has done everything right?

I think you missed the entire point of the section you are responding to here. As we have already discussed the goons only get to do anything at all after the caster has already "screwed up" by doing something noticeable. If they just walk in and walk out, the guards would just fail. But if you walk in, blow up a car, open the gate in the fence, and then try to walk away the guards may try to shoot where they think you are (you did just blow up their car after all). The point of the section you quoted is that shooting is likely not the optimal course of action for the guards, since because of the -4 penalty they likely have no chance (either literal 0 chance or getting a 4 on the die, so <2% chance) of hitting you. But they still get to try, even if they have no chance, the PC's may not know that, and it adds tension/makes things more interesting IMO.

I also do not think this is more complicated. If you do not want to deal with it, then just say that someone does not exercise the option to attack. This is really only here for when you have an enemy that for some reason (blood thirst, pissed off, whatever) wants to attack someone they know is around here somewhere and can't yet see them.

I think we do agree on the flavor text angle of it--where we differ are the mechanics. You're suggesting that someone should have a substantial, successful attack despite not being able to break the target's block against being attacked.

Remember, a veil isn't a block against just being seen. It's a block against being perceived. Failing to account for sound and other senses are aspects of a veil you can declare or assess to boost the alertness roll--but without actually passing the veil's strength with that alertness roll, that means the person being veiled is still hidden from the person doing the snooping.

If the guards are able to conclude, "There is someone here, and we know within a few feet of where he is," that means they made the Alertness check.

I do not the the attack's I have described are likely to be either substantial, or successful. Also, the block is explicitly not a block against being attacked (if it was, the attack skill could just strait pierce it, and you could always just roll an attack). Yes a veil is a block against you being detected. And the way I modeled it it does do that. But it is not a block against the consequences of your actions being detected and mental inferences. If the guards are able to think that, that means that you did something so obvious, that they were able to spot, and seriously narrows down where you could be (like walking into a closet). Otherwise, it is more like "There is someone here, and we know they are somewhere within a 25 foot radius through that door (based on how far they expect you to have moved since they saw the door open), lets empty our handgun magazines in that general area (at a -4 penalty)."

Shooting wildly to find someone while you're inside a building is, quite frankly, among the stupidest things you can do with a gun.

Then either the guards don't do it, or they are stupid. You can have smart guards, who care about collateral damage. They will not use this set of rules. You can also have blood crazed monsters, and they might, even if it is stupid.

I never said you apply these rules whenever anyone is veiled. Only when the circumstances are right (blood-crazed guards inside when you open a door, twitchy guards outside in the middle of the woods when you just broke off a tree branch) should you apply this. Other times the guards know they can try to shoot, but think better of it.

[Mr. Death]

Unless I am mistaken (and feel free to point it out if I am), Molly's write up does not say what time period it is from. I interpret this to mean it is he stat block at the earliest point she enters the story (because that is how Harry and Murphy and Michael are done). Which means it represents Molly before/at the start of Proven Guilty, before she had any training from Harry. Between the beginning of Proven Guilty and Small Favor she receives about 1-2 years of training, and participates in 2 large scale adventures. It then stands to reason that Harry helped her hone her skills (especially in veils, which he also improves at over this time because of the teaching) and helps her with foci (like McCoy did for him). She could easily be capable of 5 shift Veils by Small Favor, and more by Changes/Ghost Story. So while it may not be her stats as they are in OW (which, for almost all characters are universally considered to be on the low end anyway), it certainly isn't an explicit contradiction.

I checked, yes. Her Notes section specifically says that this is her as of the Small Favor case. And where is everyone "universally" considered to be on the low end? I mean besides those write-ups which, themselves, note that they're lowballing something because they just don't know?

So please, once again, please stop trying to argue along the lines of, "No, the stuff in OW isn't correct, but what is correct--even though it's not represented or said in the gamebook--supports my argument."

What I meant by that section was that if you do something likely to let them detect you, you get to roll stealth to conceal it, and they get to roll alertness to see/hear it. I do not mean that just walking around while Veiled you have to roll Stealth to remain unheard. What I do mean is that if you try to open a door while veiled, you roll stealth to try to do it stealthily, and anyone who could see it rolls alertness. Or, if you walk over a patch of bubble wrap or something, you have to roll stealth. A veil may hide your footsteps, or breathing, but I do not think they are designed to stop all sound from leaving your area (and if they were, you would likely not be able to hear while veiled). I may allow a player to choose that option, if they know they are going to be walking through dense/dry underbrush, or on bubble wrap, but then they will also suffer from the block on any effort to eavesdrop.

That's not how blocks work, though. Just like an attack that gets through your shield, you'd only have to roll stealth if the alertness roll succeeds in breaking the veil's strength. Things like opening a door, going over bubble wrap, etc. should either be compels (you opened a door, they can see the door open and know something's up) or declarations (Pop pop pop! They hear it, and gain +2 to the alertness roll). The veil's strength is against being perceived--if the veil's strength holds, then you don't have to roll anything else to remain hidden.

Under normal veil circumstances (you put it up beforehand, then you go spy), it just works, as you describe (alertness vs. veil, if they fail you are completely undetected). It is only when you choose to make risky moves that any of this comes up. I think it is fair that in order to steal things while invisible from under the noses of the guard you need to be stealthy as well as veiled. Gotta let a character actually built for stealth/burglary shine sometimes and not let the wizard just win at everything.

Again, what is the problem with making those compels? It's a lot simpler, works within the system, and does everything you've got in mind without having to introduce a lot of complications.

Their alertness roll failed, which means they get a -2/-4/whatever penalty to their roll, and have to roll against a block way higher than your likely defense skill, and they still don't pierce the veil. That is pretty harsh. You are getting a pretty good deal here (way better than a shield on defense).

Tell me where, in the books, it says that if a block isn't broken, the person being blocked gets to take exactly the same action the block is supposed to prevent anyway.

A block does not mean "they just get a penalty to their roll". It means the action fails. The action here is perceiving the target. If perceiving the target fails, then things that depend on perceiving the target are also going to fail, barring declarations and compels.

What you're saying is, mechanically, if you fail to find someone, then you should find and attack them anyway.

The veil certainly can be a replacement of the stealth roll, when it applies. When normally moving about, it does. When opening a door, it does not. I don't think anyone would argue that your veil makes it more difficult for a guard to notice a door opening on it's own (though the lack of a person there may make them less alert, maybe another application of circumstance penalties/bonuses, or aspect tags on I'm Invisible).

Once again: That is a compel. The game has a whole system already in place for the kind of exceptions you're worried about. The situations you think are going to be a problem aren't the rule, they're the exception, and exceptions are what compels and fate points are there for.

I think you missed the entire point of the section you are responding to here. As we have already discussed the goons only get to do anything at all after the caster has already "screwed up" by doing something noticeable. If they just walk in and walk out, the guards would just fail. But if you walk in, blow up a car, open the gate in the fence, and then try to walk away the guards may try to shoot where they think you are (you did just blow up their car after all). The point of the section you quoted is that shooting is likely not the optimal course of action for the guards, since because of the -4 penalty they likely have no chance (either literal 0 chance or getting a 4 on the die, so <2% chance) of hitting you. But they still get to try, even if they have no chance, the PC's may not know that, and it adds tension/makes things more interesting IMO.

All of that can, and should, be handled with compels, or with plain higher difficulties. The stealth check isn't just against people personally perceiving you. You could say, "Blowing up this car and getting out undetected is going to be a Legendary test of stealth. Your veil just plain isn't up to that, so once the car goes off, someone is going to detect you."

Or maybe the compel is, "Your veil works, but because you're a wizard and not a master thief, you didn't account for the pressure plates in the floor, and you're detected that way."

That said, blowing up a car doesn't mean you're standing right next to it, or even anywhere near it--in fact, it usually means exactly the opposite. It might mean the guards know someone is about, but it can't possibly tell them where that someone is.

The -4 penalty is an entirely arbitrary number, when the game has a system set up for exactly this kind of thing. And yes, they do get to try. That's the Alertness roll.

I also do not think this is more complicated. If you do not want to deal with it, then just say that someone does not exercise the option to attack. This is really only here for when you have an enemy that for some reason (blood thirst, pissed off, whatever) wants to attack someone they know is around here somewhere and can't yet see them.

Any point where you're assigning a bunch of additional penalties and such is going to be more complicated than pass/fail. If they know someone is around here somewhere, that means someone's Alertness roll succeeded. That's the bottom line here. You're giving the goons the benefit of the successful alertness roll (knowing someone is in a general area well enough to attack that area) without them actually succeeding at the roll.

I do not the the attack's I have described are likely to be either substantial, or successful. Also, the block is explicitly not a block against being attacked (if it was, the attack skill could just strait pierce it, and you could always just roll an attack).

No, that would be for a block against being hit or harmed, like a shield. A block against being attacked succeeding means you don't get attacked.

Yes a veil is a block against you being detected. And the way I modeled it it does do that.

Except the part where they're detected anyway, and then attacked.

But it is not a block against the consequences of your actions being detected and mental inferences. If the guards are able to think that, that means that you did something so obvious, that they were able to spot, and seriously narrows down where you could be (like walking into a closet).

Which is the result of a compel, declaration, or assessment on someone's part. Not a successful stealth check.

Otherwise, it is more like "There is someone here, and we know they are somewhere within a 25 foot radius through that door (based on how far they expect you to have moved since they saw the door open), lets empty our handgun magazines in that general area (at a -4 penalty)."

Again, anything where the guards know someone is reasonably close like that means the Alertness roll succeeded. I really don't see why you're against using compels--the whole thing this system is built around--to work with this instead of assigning arbitrary difficulties after letting the guards attack when they failed their roll to see if there's anyone around they should be attacking.

I never said you apply these rules whenever anyone is veiled. Only when the circumstances are right (blood-crazed guards inside when you open a door, twitchy guards outside in the middle of the woods when you just broke off a tree branch) should you apply this. Other times the guards know they can try to shoot, but think better of it.

Anything that starts "only when the circumstances are right" means it's better handled with a compel, not by altering the rules with a bunch of complicated modifiers.

I guess that's what it boils down to. You're talking about keeping things interesting, in certain circumstances, etc. This is all stuff that is pretty explicitly in the realm of compels and fate points according to the rulebook, so what is your objection to handling those situations with fate points and compels when they come up?

[Centarion]

I love compels. And you could use them here if you really wanted to. But I do not think it is appropriate. The problem is that compels can be refused. I do not think it is appropriate that refusing a compel for your veil to fail when you open the door means that no one detects you when you open the door. It just means that you do not automatically fail. In my opinion, compels should be used to enforce/reward players playing in line with their aspects when that is not the easiest/most optimal course of action. A good example would be a curious player being compelled to open the door, and loose their veil, even though the player knows this is likely non-optimal. I think "You opened the door, take a compel for the guard to see the door open" is fairly weak/boring. It feels mechanical, and compels to me are about narrative moments and progressing the story.

Your point about how blocks work, a block prevents a specific action/actions, any of the affected actions can be used to overcome the block. Certain blocks like blocks against movement stopping mele attacks work because mele attacks require (explicitly) that you be in the same zone. On the other hand no where does it say that seeing/knowing for sure where a target is is a prerequisite for you to attack them. It certainly makes it harder if you do not, but it isn't required. Just like you do not have to know exactly (or even close) to where a person is to shoot them, you are capable of thought, inference, and guessing.

I do not feel alertness rolls are appropriate substitutes for a spray and pray attempt with a hand gun. Both likely have the same result, but one is more interesting.

I do not feel piercing the veil is required to have a good idea of where someone is. A successful alertness roll to notice the effects of actions they chose to take (knowing you could see the effects) should be sufficient to allow a guess as to their position and act on it, even if you cannot see them/perceive them themselves. Veils are not blocks against someone guessing where you are based on the information they possess, it is a block against them directly detecting you.

When guards know someone is around here somewhere, that is the result of a successful alertness roll. Just because they didn't detect you doesn't mean that they didn't detect something that aroused their suspicions, and the veil specifically does not block that.

Just because someone is firing their gun at you, and has the potential to cause stress, does not mean you have been detected.

Anyway, we have gone from a point where I thought we could maybe agree on something to a point where I feel you are interpreting some my statements way out of context, ignoring some of them, or acknowledging all of my statements peicemeal and not looking at the big picture. To me that big picture is that sometimes, people shoot their guns at the air in an attempt to hit someone they know is somewhere (maybe not often in real life, but I have seen it in so many movies and TV shows, it certainly exists in fantasy). That means that they get to make an attack roll. It isn't effective. They do not detect you. But they find out you are here (with alertness based on the action you chose to perform that tipped them off). And once they know you are somewhere, aggressive/stupid goons may try to hurt you, without seeing/smelling/hearing you. Sometimes this is a compel (likely one to make you veil fail when you do something risky), sometimes the compel is refused, or it doesn't feel appropriate. In those cases, it can be an attack roll with poor circumstances.

Unless you want to give real consideration to what I am saying and stop arguing in circles I am done here. As I admitted before, I do not feel I can agree with what you are saying, I feel it is wrong and extremely unbalanced, and extremely unfun/uninteresting. Nothing you have said has changed my mind on that. I feel this system better models what it is trying to do, and is more in keeping with what is written in the book and is more fun for everyone, including the player using veils. I do not feel you will be able to change my mind on that either. So unless you want clarification from me on what I mean (and I think you do need that in order to make a persuasive argument, because right now I feel you just do not understand what I am saying), I am done with this thread.

[Mr. Death]

I love compels. And you could use them here if you really wanted to. But I do not think it is appropriate. The problem is that compels can be refused. I do not think it is appropriate that refusing a compel for your veil to fail when you open the door means that no one detects you when you open the door. It just means that you do not automatically fail. In my opinion, compels should be used to enforce/reward players playing in line with their aspects when that is not the easiest/most optimal course of action. A good example would be a curious player being compelled to open the door, and loose their veil, even though the player knows this is likely non-optimal. I think "You opened the door, take a compel for the guard to see the door open" is fairly weak/boring. It feels mechanical, and compels to me are about narrative moments and progressing the story.

Then your idea of compels is at odds with what they're for in the book. Compels are, essentially, the mechanic for making things happen a certain way despite what the dice say. If you're detected even though nobody around you can see through your veil, that's a fate point your way. Likewise, if you want to make that headshot even though the Random Number God flipped you the bird, that's a fate point you have to spend.

Though I will say I do agree that compels should be proactive instead of responsive. The compel that I would do is more along the lines of, "If you try to open that door, you'll be detected" than "You opened the door, so now you're detected."

"Compels can be refused"? Well, yes. And the players can spend a fate point to negate the arbitrary penalties you're assigning. Player choice is the most important thing. Saying you don't like compels because it means that they can be refused just means "I want this to happen no matter what" and that is straight up railroading.

Buying out of the compel doesn't mean you open the door right in front of everyone and nobody notices. It just means you get through the door without anyone noticing--maybe there's a convenient distraction, or someone else comes through and leaves it open just long enough, whatever. A compel/refusal is about the situation as a whole, not just one aspect of it.

Hell, even taking the compel should have potential for remaining hidden. Maybe the compel causes the player to sit and wait for the right opportunity to get through the door undetected, and that costs them crucial time and mental stress in maintaining the veil.

If you're making a player fail despite them succeeding by the mechanics of the game (and that is exactly what letting them be attacked without the veil failing is) then you are cheating them out of the choice the entire system is built around and doing them a huge disservice.

Your point about how blocks work, a block prevents a specific action/actions, any of the affected actions can be used to overcome the block.

The directly affected actions, yes. If you're bound, gagged, and blindfolded, that's a physical block that would stop your perception rolls too, but you can't roll Alertness real high to break out of the bonds.

Certain blocks like blocks against movement stopping mele attacks work because mele attacks require (explicitly) that you be in the same zone. On the other hand no where does it say that seeing/knowing for sure where a target is is a prerequisite for you to attack them.

Only because it's basic common sense.

It certainly makes it harder if you do not, but it isn't required. Just like you do not have to know exactly (or even close) to where a person is to shoot them, you are capable of thought, inference, and guessing.

Again, you are confusing things. A veil or stealth roll is not solely about sight. It's about detecting the person is there at all. If you have any idea of where to shoot, close enough that you can hit them, that means the Alertness roll succeeded. Not that the alertness roll failed, the veil held up, and you still get to attack them.

I do not feel alertness rolls are appropriate substitutes for a spray and pray attempt with a hand gun. Both likely have the same result, but one is more interesting.

And one makes sense and one does not. One should be the main mechanic of a game, and the other should be a compel. "A compel can be refused" is not reason to muck up the mechanics of the game to railroad your players.

I do not feel piercing the veil is required to have a good idea of where someone is.

Then, to be perfectly blunt, you are wrong. It's like saying, "I do not feel beating the defense roll is required to cause stress." The veil exists explicitly to keep someone from knowing where you are. That is its whole purpose. If you have a good idea of where someone is, that means the veil failed.

A successful alertness roll to notice the effects of actions they chose to take (knowing you could see the effects) should be sufficient to allow a guess as to their position and act on it, even if you cannot see them/perceive them themselves. Veils are not blocks against someone guessing where you are based on the information they possess, it is a block against them directly detecting you.

"Based on the information they possess" is a declaration or a compel. A modification of the Alertness roll to make that educated guess. It is not an automatic reason to land a successful attack, unless you're giving a fate point over to the player who's being detected.

When guards know someone is around here somewhere, that is the result of a successful alertness roll. Just because they didn't detect you doesn't mean that they didn't detect something that aroused their suspicions, and the veil specifically does not block that.

The suspicion that "someone is around here somewhere" is not justification to make an accurate attack. It's justification for the guards to start maneuvering and declaring to boost their investigative rolls.

Just because someone is firing their gun at you, and has the potential to cause stress, does not mean you have been detected.

Yes it does. If you haven't been detected, why are they shooting? If they are the type of guard who think every little noise has to be answered with a hail of gunfire throughout the whole room, that is the exception to the rule, and therefore is a compel.

Anyway, we have gone from a point where I thought we could maybe agree on something to a point where I feel you are interpreting some my statements way out of context, ignoring some of them, or acknowledging all of my statements peicemeal and not looking at the big picture. To me that big picture is that sometimes, people shoot their guns at the air in an attempt to hit someone they know is somewhere (maybe not often in real life, but I have seen it in so many movies and TV shows, it certainly exists in fantasy). That means that they get to make an attack roll.

If they know someone is somewhere accurately enough to shoot them, that means either they made their Alertness roll, or the player is getting a fate point because the unique circumstances are making their otherwise-good veil fail at keeping them from being detected.

It isn't effective. They do not detect you.

If they know where you are close enough to start shooting, they have detected you, and the veil has failed. "Detect you" doesn't necessarily mean "they know exactly where you are standing and can actually see you." It means "They know you are here, accurately enough to start attacking."

But they find out you are here (with alertness based on the action you chose to perform that tipped them off). And once they know you are somewhere, aggressive/stupid goons may try to hurt you, without seeing/smelling/hearing you. Sometimes this is a compel (likely one to make you veil fail when you do something risky), sometimes the compel is refused, or it doesn't feel appropriate. In those cases, it can be an attack roll with poor circumstances.

If the compel is refused, is not appropriate, and the guards have no mechanical reason to know the person is there, accurately enough to attack, then they should not be able to attack. You're saying that the person being veiled should still be forced to take stress, even when there is no mechanical or narrative reason for them to do so, without them getting a fate point.

Once again, "Once they know you are here" is the definition of a successful Alertness check.

When the player's goal (don't be attacked) fails without those plans ever being mechanically beaten (through a roll), then they deserve a fate point for it. What you are arguing for is forcing the player to fail without any compensation for it, and that is wrong.

The game even has a section that says maneuvers and aspects are "the death of situational modifiers" for this system, and you're trying to introduce a bunch of situational modifiers for exceptional situations.

Unless you want to give real consideration to what I am saying and stop arguing in circles I am done here. As I admitted before, I do not feel I can agree with what you are saying, I feel it is wrong and extremely unbalanced, and extremely unfun/uninteresting. Nothing you have said has changed my mind on that.

I can say the exact same thing to you. Your proposal, quite frankly, screws the person using the veil out of the whole purpose of the veil, without even the courtesy of offering a fate point for it. It is railroading the player into failure despite them mechanically succeeding.

I feel this system better models what it is trying to do, and is more in keeping with what is written in the book and is more fun for everyone, including the player using veils.

You're describing a system where a player who specializes in veils, whose veils are never pierced, and who--by the numbers--is never detected by his enemies, can still be gunned down, without so much as being offered a fate point for his troubles. How is it fun for him, when the system is built to make him fail no matter what he does?

I do not feel you will be able to change my mind on that either. So unless you want clarification from me on what I mean (and I think you do need that in order to make a persuasive argument, because right now I feel you just do not understand what I am saying), I am done with this thread.

I think I've got a clear idea of what you're saying, and, quite frankly, I think it's the wrong way to play the game. What it seems you're saying is that a player who uses veils should be railroaded into being attacked, even when his enemies can't beat his veil and therefore do not know where he is.

Edit: One last thing. The section on evocation blocks (YS252) outright says that veils are not blocks against damage. The  section on Spirit as an element (YS255) says a veil's strength in particular "serves as the difficulty for using skills or other magic to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil" (Emphasis mine). Not the difficulty of hitting something, or a block against causing damage like you've been suggesting, but a block against being detected at all--so if the veil isn't surpassed, whoever's looking doesn't discern your presence. The book refers to veils as an alternative approach to defense, and even a "special type" of block. The book is, in fact, pretty clear that a veil is a different way to prevent getting hit from a usual shield-type spell.