Veils

[Taran]

In this example, someone could have a 10-shift veil, against someone with an Alertness of 2, and then still be found and attacked without a compel.

To notice the action, or result of the action is one thing. To immediately conclude, "Right there is someone there I need to shoot," and then successfully cause stress is another.

Someone with a 10-shift veil is unlikely to take stress even if an attacker knows the general vicinity - they still have to overcome a 10-shift block.

Come to think about it, I think there are many instances where an attack could be substituted for an alertness check to overcome the veil.  Swinging a sword around might not cause stress, but if it hits anything substantial, it's going to give away the position of a veiled target.

Of course, a person would have to have a good reason to WANT to use weapons instead of alertness in the first place.

I think there's two ways to look at it (the above statement aside.  I was thinking out loud):

1. a veil as a block against perception therefore if you cannot perceive the target you cannot attack the target.

2. the veil as a block against all actions that require you to perceive the target.  Attacking in any way that requires you to perceive the target would put you up against the block.

It's a subtle but important difference.  I'm not sure #2 nerfs veils because of the following reasons.

1.  There's no reason to use any skill other than perception skills unless the veiled person tips their hand (GM's discretion)

2.  Even if they do use another type of skill, they still have overcome the block, which is within the rules.

3.  A veil is still slightly better than a regular block because even if the attacker overcomes the veil with an attack, the veiled person still has many options to confound the attacker while, with a regular block, an attacker always knows the location of the target and can continue to attempt to overcome the block.  (I'm not sure how clear that statement was)

Actually, my only hesitation with using veil version #2 is it makes it a far better block than a regular sheild.

Fred's post is getting to me).

Huh?  Did I miss something?

[Centarion]

Huh?  Did I miss something?

Cross reference to the hunger thread, Fred has a post about using consequences as a resource, and in it he talks about how there are few penalties in DFRPG because addition feels better (so instead of a penalty on the roll, you increase the difficulty or similar).  Mechanically these are the same of course.

[Mr. Death]

But in my example the guard does make the alertness roll.

No, your example was the guard making a declaration, explicitly not beating the veil with his alertness roll, but still getting the benefit of beating the veil.

If the guard fails to see the door open because of a stealth roll on the veilers part he does not the to make the declaration, and thus does not get to attack. I am just saying that the difficulty to see a door open and guess where the opener is is less than the difficulty to actually determine someone's position with no external clues, and this can be handled with a declaration+attack (or traditionally by tagging the declaration to boost a subsequent alertness).

And I am saying that the Veil's strength is the difficulty in finding the veiler. If you're shooting at them, that means you found him, not that you made a declaration entirely independent of the veil's strength. You are advocating someone get the benefit of beating a block's strength without having to beat that block's strength.

I am well aware that an alertness beating a veil does not mean you just see through it, though it could. What I am saying is that when external circumstances provide something more obvious than the person themselves, and that something is not hidden by the veil, then there is a lower difficulty alertness declaration to be made, that could justify an attack.

Again: To notice the action, yes. To see through the veil and attack? No. You could compel it to say the veil failed, or tag it to make an Alertness roll against the veil, but if the veil's strength isn't beaten, that means the guard does not know where the person is. That is what the veil's strength means. Per the book, it is explicitly not a block against damage, which is what you're trying to treat it as.

Further, these are not "I know exactly where you are" like in the Murphy example, simply a "I know you are in that general direction."

Close enough as makes no difference. If you're able to target someone accurately enough to do damage, you've beaten the veil's strength and know where they are.

Look, the whole purpose of a veil is as an alternate defense, using less power to protect yourself by exploiting a skill that's going to be significantly less for your opponent than their main attack skill. Allowing someone to still attack them without beating the veil's block is robbing the veil of its unique properties, and missing the point entirely.

Again: Per the book and Molly's write-up, if veils and declarations acted the way you're insisted, Molly would be dead several times over instead of coming away with, at worst, a new coating of paint.

Come to think about it, I think there are many instances where an attack could be substituted for an alertness check to overcome the veil.  Swinging a sword around might not cause stress, but if it hits anything substantial, it's going to give away the position of a veiled target.

Of course, a person would have to have a good reason to WANT to use weapons instead of alertness in the first place.

As I've said before, I'd allow this sort of thing as a maneuver (or a compel/invoke that someone has to make to use that skill--as you say, there's got to be a reason they're swinging wildly around), but not as an attack.

Hell, that's probably what the Ick did against Molly--made a maneuver with Fists, tagging the declaration Bucket Of Paint for a bonus, and then tagged the resulting aspect to either make the alertness roll or remove Molly's veil until she cast it again with an invoke for effect.

I think there's two ways to look at it (the above statement aside.  I was thinking out loud):

1. a veil as a block against perception therefore if you cannot perceive the target you cannot attack the target.

2. the veil as a block against all actions that require you to perceive the target.  Attacking in any way that requires you to perceive the target would put you up against the block.

That seems to be the gist of it.

1.  There's no reason to use any skill other than perception skills unless the veiled person tips their hand (GM's discretion)

2.  Even if they do use another type of skill, they still have overcome the block, which is within the rules.

The way I look at it, however, is that a veil isn't meant to be a defense against direct attacks. Per the book's description and how we see them play out in the series, they're meant to be a defense against being targeted at all.

Would you have someone use their Stealth skill as a physical defense against an attack?

3.  A veil is still slightly better than a regular block because even if the attacker overcomes the veil with an attack, the veiled person still has many options to confound the attacker while, with a regular block, an attacker always knows the location of the target and can continue to attempt to overcome the block.  (I'm not sure how clear that statement was)

This goes against the rules, however. If you overcome a magical block, it's not supposed to stay up. And, as I've been arguing, if the person being veiled is being shot at accurately enough to cause stress and consequences, then the veil has clearly not done its job of making sure the person is not perceived and targeted.

A veil isn't going to do anything to stop or redirect the bullets coming at you--and that's what a block against damage would do. A veil is meant to stop and redirect attention--if someone is able to pay attention to the point they can target and attack with reasonable accuracy, that, to me, means the veil has straight up failed, either through a successful Alertness check or a compel or some kind.

That's my bottom line here. A veil is, essentially, a declaration on the part of the caster saying, "You can't find me." If they're being attacked directly, that means someone has found them--either via a successful perception roll of some kind, or a circumstance that justified a compel.

[Taran]

Would you have someone use their Stealth skill as a physical defense against an attack?

If it seemed appropriate at the time and it could be justified, then yes.

This goes against the rules, however. If you overcome a magical block, it's not supposed to stay up.
 

True.  But a block is also not also supposed to completely prevent people from trying.  I think the phrase in the book "veil serves as the difficulty for using skills or other magic to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil" is a fairly vague one.  Really, it doesn't say you need Awareness or Investigate to detect somthing.  It just says "skills"  A veil should also hide tactile senses, so a successful attack to hit should overcome the veil since you'd be touching them.  I also think that interpreting that as "the subject of a veil may not be subject to attacks, targetted maneuvers or blocks" as a very liberal interpretation.

Originally, I would have ruled that any attack would overcome the block, but since you pointed out that that would nerf veils too much, I figured a compromise to say that only a "perception" could overcome the veil would be appropriate.  There's precedence for that in the grapple rules where a successful check to overcome the block does not necessarily break the grapple.  I'd be just as happy to make it a regular block.

And, as I've been arguing, if the person being veiled is being shot at accurately enough to cause stress and consequences, then the veil has clearly not done its job of making sure the person is not perceived and targeted.

I agree.  It hasn't.

A veil isn't going to do anything to stop or redirect the bullets coming at you--and that's what a block against damage would do.

Really?  Previously you mentionned that someone took out a goblin by Intimidating it to attack a veiled bit of iron.  Which I think is brilliant. You seem to be an extremely creative person so I find it hard to beleive you can't, in a narrative sense, see how a veil blocking an attack, can be interpreted as the attack missing because the person was unable to properly target them.

[Mr. Death]

If it seemed appropriate at the time and it could be justified, then yes.

So in unique circumstances, rather than as a rule? Because what you're suggesting is that something like that should be the rule instead. Exceptions and stuff like that is usually the realm of compels, invokes, and declarations, not core rules.

Also note that the rules on using skills that normally wouldn't work are that the GM might allow it, but at a significantly increased difficulty, possibly requiring an invoke of some kind, and very few times before making a player spend some refresh on being able to do so regularly.

True.  But a block is also not also supposed to completely prevent people from trying.

Actually, they certainly can. A block is, essentially, just a character setting a difficulty for doing something rather than the GM. The book mentions that failing an Athletics roll to jump a gap doesn't necessarily mean that the person tries, fails, and plummets to their death--it could easily mean simply that the person judges that they can't make the jump, and doesn't try. Same thing here. Someone who doesn't overcome the Alertness roll--and can't find the person--just doesn't try, or is unable to, find them by firing wildly.

So, yes, I think it is entirely possible to have an action automatically fail if the prerequisite for that action has already failed.

I think the phrase in the book "veil serves as the difficulty for using skills or other magic to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil" is a fairly vague one.  Really, it doesn't say you need Awareness or Investigate to detect somthing.

Not explicitly, no, but those are the skills to make sense to detect something, just as Athletics and Might are the skills that make sense to bypass physical blocks. Would you let someone use Alertness or Investigation to overcome a physical block?

A veil should also hide tactile senses, so a successful attack to hit should overcome the veil since you'd be touching them.  I also think that interpreting that as "the subject of a veil may not be subject to attacks, targetted maneuvers or blocks" as a very liberal interpretation.

I disagree. How do you act against something you can't find?

If the veil's strength is the difficulty for making the declaration of "There he is," how do you act against something without being able to make that declaration?

Originally, I would have ruled that any attack would overcome the block, but since you pointed out that that would nerf veils too much, I figured a compromise to say that only a "perception" could overcome the veil would be appropriate.

Even that leaves the problem of getting the benefit of beating the veil (confirming their location and attacking them) without beating the veil.

Part of the purpose of a veil is to force an opponent to depend on something besides their apex attack skill. It's a "less is more" approach--Molly remains hidden because while supernatural baddies are fast, strong, and superb fighters, their Alertness rolls blow, and therefore they can't target her.

There's precedence for that in the grapple rules where a successful check to overcome the block does not necessarily break the grapple.  I'd be just as happy to make it a regular block.

Grapples aren't magical blocks, however. It's the magical-ness of the block that means it falls apart after it's broken, not the block part. Plus, grapples are explicitly a different type of thing from regular blocks.

I agree.  It hasn't.

So it is your view that a veil can fail at its job, without actually being overcome by the skills it's meant to block?

Really?  Previously you mentionned that someone took out a goblin by Intimidating it to attack a veiled bit of iron.  Which I think is brilliant. You seem to be an extremely creative person so I find it hard to beleive you can't, in a narrative sense, see how a veil blocking an attack, can be interpreted as the attack missing because the person was unable to properly target them.

I can see it, but to my mind that is simply not how veils are supposed to work. If they were meant to be blocks against damage, the book wouldn't go out of its way to describe them as special blocks against perception, nor would the book say explicitly that a veil is not a block against damage.

To my mind, a veil is not just supposed to be a different flavor of a defensive shield, but an alternate route to defense entirely--making an opponent have to use something besides the apex attack skill to be able to hurt you.

[Mr. Death]

Let's consider a possible scenario, based on the statistics given in the books. Call it Molly vs. Gruffs, and we'll go under Centarion and Taran's interpretation.

Gruffs attack Harry, and Molly veils--going by the rulebook, this is her rote veil, a 3-shift block against perception. Gruffs are focused on Harry the first round, and have no reason to notice Molly, so her veil holds, they don't see her, and isn't attacked.

Molly starts round two under her veil still, and throws a snowball, a maneuver to draw aggro away from Harry, before hiding under the veil again. The Gruff still isn't able to break the veil's block with his Alertness roll.

But, because the Gruff knows Molly is somewhere within snowball-throwing range, the Gruff gets to immediately reroll to detect and damage Molly, at a much higher skill level, without having to spend a fate point or otherwise compelling Molly.

Molly's 3-shift veil is broken by the Gruff's Fists attack, and with its Claws and Strength, Molly is almost guaranteed to have a consequence of some kind, which can then be tagged to beat the veil again if she tries to put up a new one, and given the Gruff's physical advantage, Ms. Carpenter is not long for this world.

Under your interpretation, the Alertness roll--which the veil is made to block--simply doesn't matter, because for the barest justification, the attacker can default to his apex skill. Instead of being an alternative, creative way to avoid being harmed, it's just a shield spell with a different flavor.

[Taran]

So in unique circumstances, rather than as a rule? Because what you're suggesting is that something like that should be the rule instead. Exceptions and stuff like that is usually the realm of compels, invokes, and declarations, not core rules.

Actually, they certainly can. A block is, essentially, just a character setting a difficulty for doing something rather than the GM. The book mentions that failing an Athletics roll to jump a gap doesn't necessarily mean that the person tries, fails, and plummets to their death--it could easily mean simply that the person judges that they can't make the jump, and doesn't try. Same thing here. Someone who doesn't overcome the Alertness roll--and can't find the person--just doesn't try, or is unable to, find them by firing wildly.

None of this applies as I interpret the veil to block actions that require perception, which could be a wide variety of skills.

Not explicitly, no, but those are the skills to make sense to detect something, just as Athletics and Might are the skills that make sense to bypass physical blocks. Would you let someone use Alertness or Investigation to overcome a physical block?

That depends:  can they shoot laser beams out of their eyes

If the veil's strength is the difficulty for making the declaration of "There he is," how do you act against something without being able to make that declaration?

I wouldn't allow people to even try to attack a veiled person without an appropriate reason or declaration.  I might have mentionned that already.

So it is your view that a veil can fail at its job, without actually being overcome by the skills it's meant to block?

See above.  I think a veil is meant to block a wider variety of skills just Awareness and Investigation.

nor would the book say explicitly that a veil is not a block against damage.

This I'm curious about.  Which page is it on?  I'll re-read the section.

To my mind, a veil is not just supposed to be a different flavor of a defensive shield, but an alternate route to defense entirely

It should be an alternate route to defense entirely.  That's why you shouldn't be attacking under the cover of a veil because you're likely to get people trying to attack you.

After all these pages, I know how I want to adjudicate this.  One of my Players has a character with Glamours and will be using veils often.  If it doesn't work out, I'll be happy to change how we do it.  I can also post here either way.

Let's consider a possible scenario, based on the statistics given in the books. Call it Molly vs. Gruffs, and we'll go under Centarion and Taran's interpretation.

Gruffs attack Harry, and Molly veils--going by the rulebook, this is her rote veil, a 3-shift block against perception. Gruffs are focused on Harry the first round, and have no reason to notice Molly, so her veil holds, they don't see her, and isn't attacked.

Molly starts round two under her veil still, and throws a snowball, a maneuver to draw aggro away from Harry, before hiding under the veil again. The Gruff still isn't able to break the veil's block with his Alertness roll.

But, because the Gruff knows Molly is somewhere within snowball-throwing range, the Gruff gets to immediately reroll to detect and damage Molly, at a much higher skill level, without having to spend a fate point or otherwise compelling Molly.

Molly's 3-shift veil is broken by the Gruff's Fists attack, and with its Claws and Strength, Molly is almost guaranteed to have a consequence of some kind, which can then be tagged to beat the veil again if she tries to put up a new one, and given the Gruff's physical advantage, Ms. Carpenter is not long for this world.

Under your interpretation, the Alertness roll--which the veil is made to block--simply doesn't matter, because for the barest justification, the attacker can default to his apex skill. Instead of being an alternative, creative way to avoid being harmed, it's just a shield spell with a different flavor.

We used this example many, many times.  Your version was different from ours.  In our version, I think Molly survived...If I remember correctly.

[Mr. Death]

None of this applies as I interpret the veil to block actions that require perception, which could be a wide variety of skills.

But that the veil can be overcome without that perception happening? You'd let someone fire blind and still hit as if they knew where to shoot?

I wouldn't allow people to even try to attack a veiled person without an appropriate reason or declaration.  I might have mentionned that already.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that to make that declaration, they have to beat the Veil's strength, or the veiler should be getting a fate point for it. You appear to be saying that they can make that declaration without beating the veil's strength.

See above.  I think a veil is meant to block a wider variety of skills just Awareness and Investigation.

And I think that's mistaken, for the reasons I've stated.

This I'm curious about.  Which page is it on?  I'll re-read the section.

It's 252 in Your Story; I quoted it before, and as I recall, it's accompanied by a side-note from Harry saying that Molly is particularly skilled at it. Or that side-note might be on 255 or 276 (and I think that's all the pages on which Veils are discussed in YS).

It should be an alternate route to defense entirely.  That's why you shouldn't be attacking under the cover of a veil because you're likely to get people trying to attack you.

Trying, and failing because they can't target you. Sometimes something you try is going to fail because you lack a crucial piece of information that would allow success.

We used this example many, many times.  Your version was different from ours.  In our version, I think Molly survived...If I remember correctly.

And if I remember correctly, your version had Molly's veils at a much higher strength, with the justification of, "Oh, the book's wrong, her power for veils must be a lot higher." Going by the skill level presented in the books, which is really the only baseline we have, Molly is screwed.

I'd still like an answer on what your feelings are about the attacker getting an automatic, free, immediate, and higher reroll to break the block under your interpretation.

[Centarion]

Let's consider a possible scenario, based on the statistics given in the books. Call it Molly vs. Gruffs, and we'll go under Centarion and Taran's interpretation.

Gruffs attack Harry, and Molly veils--going by the rulebook, this is her rote veil, a 3-shift block against perception. Gruffs are focused on Harry the first round, and have no reason to notice Molly, so her veil holds, they don't see her, and isn't attacked.

Molly starts round two under her veil still, and throws a snowball, a maneuver to draw aggro away from Harry, before hiding under the veil again. The Gruff still isn't able to break the veil's block with his Alertness roll.

But, because the Gruff knows Molly is somewhere within snowball-throwing range, the Gruff gets to immediately reroll to detect and damage Molly, at a much higher skill level, without having to spend a fate point or otherwise compelling Molly.

Molly's 3-shift veil is broken by the Gruff's Fists attack, and with its Claws and Strength, Molly is almost guaranteed to have a consequence of some kind, which can then be tagged to beat the veil again if she tries to put up a new one, and given the Gruff's physical advantage, Ms. Carpenter is not long for this world.

Under your interpretation, the Alertness roll--which the veil is made to block--simply doesn't matter, because for the barest justification, the attacker can default to his apex skill. Instead of being an alternative, creative way to avoid being harmed, it's just a shield spell with a different flavor.

Let us try this again. I will even use the book's value of 3 (even though I hold that to be way to low, at least by the point she fights with the Gruffs) to placate you.

Molly starts the fight under a veil, the Gruffs cannot attack her because the do not know she is there, and they did not succeed on alertness to notice her. They attack Harry.

Later in round one, Molly maneuvers to try to draw attention off of Harry by throwing a snowball (to maneuver she has to overcome a block of 1 or maybe 2 [rounding?], half the veil strength). This triggers another alertness roll by the Gruff, against a difficulty of 3, to spot Molly. The Gruff says that since Molly threw a snowball, he should have some general idea of where she is. The GM agrees, but does not want to totally neuter the veil, so instead of giving him a +2 to his alertness to spot her, he proposes that a roll of 3 will spot her, and a roll of 1 will allow him to make a declaration of "I saw where that came from." [NOTE: going by your interpretation, the GM's only option would be to give the Gruff a +2, and because of this he would likely spot her, and splat her assuming he has at least 1 alertness, I do not have my OW on me and cannot look that up]

On the Gruff's turn, he decides to tag the aspect "I saw where that came from" for effect to be able to attack Molly. [NOTE: this is likely a worse choice for him than just using it to boost alertness, because the veil strength is fairly low, had the veil strength been higher, this may be a more attractive option] The GM decides that because he cannot see her/detect her he is facing an adverse circumstance, thus the difficulty to hit her will be 2 higher (a 5 *or* her athletics+2 whichever is higher). [NOTE: The GM could add another adverse circumstance, for the large open space, but he has decided not to because the Gruff saw exactly where the snowball came from, and Molly has not moved] The Gruff attacks with Fists, a skill at 3 or 4 (I do not have my book, but I cannot imagine a normal Gruff has more than Great Fists) and gets the average result, a 0. Thus he completely misses and Molly is fine. [NOTE: even had the Gruff hit, the veil would not automatically be broken. Further, in subsequent rounds, he would likely face a difficulty increase of 4 when attacking her, unless Molly made her location obvious again].

[Mr. Death]

Let us try this again. I will even use the book's value of 3 (even though I hold that to be way to low, at least by the point she fights with the Gruffs) to placate you.

Molly starts the fight under a veil, the Gruffs cannot attack her because the do not know she is there, and they did not succeed on alertness to notice her. They attack Harry.

Later in round one, Molly maneuvers to try to draw attention off of Harry by throwing a snowball (to maneuver she has to overcome a block of 1 or maybe 2 [rounding?], half the veil strength). This triggers another alertness roll by the Gruff, against a difficulty of 3, to spot Molly. The Gruff says that since Molly threw a snowball, he should have some general idea of where she is. The GM agrees, but does not want to totally neuter the veil, so instead of giving him a +2 to his alertness to spot her, he proposes that a roll of 3 will spot her, and a roll of 1 will allow him to make a declaration of "I saw where that came from." [NOTE: going by your interpretation, the GM's only option would be to give the Gruff a +2, and because of this he would likely spot her, and splat her assuming he has at least 1 alertness, I do not have my OW on me and cannot look that up]

On the Gruff's turn, he decides to tag the aspect "I saw where that came from" for effect to be able to attack Molly. [NOTE: this is likely a worse choice for him than just using it to boost alertness, because the veil strength is fairly low, had the veil strength been higher, this may be a more attractive option] The GM decides that because he cannot see her/detect her he is facing an adverse circumstance, thus the difficulty to hit her will be 2 higher (a 5 *or* her athletics+2 whichever is higher). [NOTE: The GM could add another adverse circumstance, for the large open space, but he has decided not to because the Gruff saw exactly where the snowball came from, and Molly has not moved] The Gruff attacks with Fists, a skill at 3 or 4 (I do not have my book, but I cannot imagine a normal Gruff has more than Great Fists) and gets the average result, a 0. Thus he completely misses and Molly is fine. [NOTE: even had the Gruff hit, the veil would not automatically be broken. Further, in subsequent rounds, he would likely face a difficulty increase of 4 when attacking her, unless Molly made her location obvious again].

So for your solution to match what we see in the books, we have to finagle a totally different way to have declarations and aspects work (and no, a +2 to Alertness on the tag would not be "neutering" the veil; it would be exactly how this is supposed to work in the RAW) apparently because the GM has it in mind that they don't want the veil to fail (If the veil fails, that's not the GM's problem, it's Molly's--and Molly likely has fate points and definitely has aspects to invoke here if she doesn't want to get seen), go into difficulty modifiers that the Fate system is supposed to be doing away with, and, apparently, toss aside the rules for an intended result without tossing around any fate points, instead of letting the dice and mechanics play out.

This example in particular also requires assumptions that are, in all likelihood, flat out wrong: Molly's the PC here, not the Gruffs--the GM is deciding what they're doing; and there is no way that Molly is so utterly braindead as to throw a snowball to get a monster's attention and then stand completely still--if you stand still in combat, you die, and Molly knows that as well as anyone, so it is a completely unreasonable basis on which to attack accurately.

Your example, in short, requires more complications and playing very loose with the rules in order to achieve your desired outcome.

[Taran]

Putting aside that Molly is a main character and those Gruffs are the first encounter of an entire quest...

I'd assumed that Molly tagged a bunch of aspects like "home turf" scene aspect, "big back yard" declaration, maybe even "my Master needs me".  She probably spent a FP or two on character aspects as well.

She could boost her Power or control or both + over-cast the spell.  She could probably hit a veil strength of around 6-8.  Which easily makes it a strong enough veil.

Since the Gruffs primary objective was to take out Harry, they'd be unlikely to use any free tags they might have on Molly.  I don't figure they'd have FP's and, once again, they'd probably save them for Harry.

[Centarion]

How would this work under your solution? The problems you have noted in my example come about not because of my system, but because the veil strength is so low.

a +2 to Alertness on the tag would not be "neutering" the veil; it would be exactly how this is supposed to work in the RAW

But what aspect would he be tagging. There have been none placed when he makes this declaration. The GM could rule that he could tag some aspect that was generated when Molly threw a snowball (though what generated it I do not know), but this would be GM fiat.

So instead of making up an aspect, and forcing the Gruff to tag it for +2, the GM decides that circumstances warrant a application of the rules (YS in the section about adjudicating skill checks) for different levels of success. In this case a total success would be a 3 (the difficulty of the veil) and would entitle the Gruff to know exactly where Molly is, and break the veil. A weaker success, a 1, entitles him to the aspect "I saw where that came from."

GM has it in mind that they don't want the veil to fail

In this case, I do not think the GM is railroading the veil either way. I may have been unclear in that sentence. Under your rules, you have decided that when an alertness check is triggered by an event, such as throwing a snowball, the person rolling alertness gets to tag some non-existent aspect for a +2. This basically shortcuts the declaration of an aspect like "I saw where that came from," which is fine, because  that type of declaration is fairly trivial. But for the sake of my example I put it in, for maximum clarity.

NOTE: The Gruff, after making a successful declaration with alertness, with difficulty 1, gets the aspect "I saw where that came from" on his turn he is welcome to use that tag to roll alertness at +2, see the veil and then attack. This is likely the optimal strategy given the relatively low strength of the veil. But, for the sake of this example I chose to have the Gruff take the other course of action. This is not a problem with my interpretation of the rules, it is just another available option, just like invoking for effect is always an alternative to invoking for +2.

difficulty modifiers that the Fate system is supposed to be doing away with, and, apparently, toss aside the rules for an intended result without tossing around any fate points, instead of letting the dice and mechanics play out.

Actually, there is a section at the end of YS explicitly dealing with difficulty modifiers and adjudicating skill checks. It says that you add 2 to the difficulty of any roll for each factor that makes it more difficult (Like lack of tools, or time pressure). I think that is applicable here.

Also, I am not tossing aside any rules, I am, as you suggested, allowing the Gruff to invoke the aspect he placed with his declaration for effect. This invoke for effect allows him to do something he normally could not, attack a target he cannot see (as we noted above this is an adverse circumstance).

There is nothing here that is not explicitly part of the RAW. We have a variable degree of success on a skill check that respects the difficulty to fully detect someone through their veil (base difficulty to place an aspect, higher difficulty = veil strength, to break veil). You yourself are in favor of people using declarations for aspects like this. Then we have an invoke for effect to allow an attack not other wise allowed. Your arguments over the last two pages have been all about the fact that strange outliers like this should be handled with aspect invocations or compels, well here you go. Then we have a difficulty increase of a skill roll (an attack is still a skill roll), as noted in YS in the chapter about adjudicating skill checks.

You could also have a compel here, that would be something like "Since you threw a snowball at him, he sees you, your veil fails, OK? Here is a fate point." But absent that, this is how I would do this scenario under the rules.

[Centarion]

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).

declarations (Pop pop pop! They hear it, and gain +2 to the alertness roll)

[Mr. Death]

Putting aside that Molly is a main character and those Gruffs are the first encounter of an entire quest...

I'd assumed that Molly tagged a bunch of aspects like "home turf" scene aspect, "big back yard" declaration, maybe even "my Master needs me".  She probably spent a FP or two on character aspects as well.

She could boost her Power or control or both + over-cast the spell.  She could probably hit a veil strength of around 6-8.  Which easily makes it a strong enough veil.

Since the Gruffs primary objective was to take out Harry, they'd be unlikely to use any free tags they might have on Molly.  I don't figure they'd have FP's and, once again, they'd probably save them for Harry.

I don't see how any of that wouldn't apply to my interpretation as well. If we're making all kinds of declarations and throwing fate points around, both approaches would, eventually, work to the same result.

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.

[Taran]

I'd still like an answer on what your feelings are about the attacker getting an automatic, free, immediate, and higher reroll to break the block under your interpretation.

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.

If the attack failed, the defender is still under a veil and would be smart to relocate themselves.
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.

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.

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'm not sure you agree but I'm curious if I answered the question.

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.

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

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.