Do blocks worth the efforts?

[Mr. Death]

A failed athletics roll for a jump can just as easily be not jumping in the last second as it can be failing to jump to the other side.

But breaking through a mental block is not something done through physical prowess. Think of any athlete who's choked in the big game. Or that episode of BTAS where the Scarecrow is rigging games with his fear toxin.

If breaking the block like that makes sense, then yes, you can. But using your apex skill is not always appropriate. Incite something in a social setting, and you can't just use fists to get out of it, without making a scene.

Yes, but that sort of thing should work in a combat situation, too. If Harry's mindwhammied by Lara in the middle of a fight, can he just use Fists instead of Discipline to overcome it and deck her anyway? Even though he simply does not have the mental reserves to resist her?

Granted, blocks are my least favorite mechanic in the DFRPG. But that aside, I feel that they become way too powerful if you can force someone to do something to overcome it. That's basically a grapple. And I have no problem with modeling something like this as a grapple, but then it should follow the grapple rules and require an appropriate aspect before initiating it.

Honestly, even the grapple is, in my opinion, too weak in this interpretation. If you think about it, a grapple would do nothing to even slow down a dedicated speedster, even if they're already grabbed. Even someone with Might at 5 and Supernatural strength can't reliably hold onto someone who's got Athletics at 5 and Supernatural speed--even though, by all logic, once the guy who can bench press a car has his hands on you, you shouldn't be able to break his grip.

Another problem I have with your example is that I can't really see it being used in a game like that. If you have a conflict and you block the other character from jumping over to you, then it's basically game over, you won. But that's a taken out result and should be a taken out result in my opinion. You can, as I said, reach that by attacking with incite emotion and taking the other guy out, but not with a block. What you can do is increase the zone border for your opponent. That's a block action right there. But he is still able to jump. He might have lost some of his confidence in his jumping abilities, but those abilities are so awesome, that he can still succeed. If both characters have the same skill level, then the chances are even. If the vampire has a lower skill level, then yes, he has less chance to keep the block up.

Not really. That was just a random example of what I'm talking about--and it doesn't end the conflict (if there even is a conflict--maybe it's a race to the macguffin on the next rooftop), it just keeps the guy from moving on. As I said about veils there are other options--in this case, the mental block is a fear of heights, not a fear of decking the vampire in the teeth, or shooting the vampire (which, if successful, would get rid of the block).

The point I'm trying to make is, with your interpretation, it's near impossible to block someone from using their apex skill, unless your own applicable skill is so high that you can just rely on defending anyway. To my reading, there should be a way to come at someone sideways so that they can't just blow through everything in a fight with their highest skill.

With a veil up, you can easily justify your opponent attacking someone else. Maybe by paying a fate point, maybe just by pointing it out to the GM. Remember that Molly not only used her veil, but she used her Good Deceit skill, too, when she misled the Gruffs into thinking she went somewhere else. She might even have used her Great Discipline to "keep her cool" or something like it.

She can't do all of that at once, though. If Molly casts a block, that's her turn--and if the gruffs can just swing wildly and reliably hit her, then that's a wasted turn, because her veil is down, in your interpretation.

Then again, looking at OW, the gruffs are not really a threat to Molly. By that writeup, they have Fists at +3 (QW45 but they use the Goblin sheet OW43), which is a match. Now let Molly do an overcharged version of her veil instead of the rote (and since she has to cover her siblings as well, that's likely the case), and she can easily use it to get out of the way. Throw in a Fate point, and you are good to go.

Actually, the rules for veils, as I recall, say you can also veil people close to you for free, up to about the size of a small car.

But the point is, in the write up of veils as a special block, as I recall, it specifically calls it out as a way to avoid damage even if you don't have a lot of power to throw around. Using veils in your interpretation reduces it back to straight up power-vs-power, which I feel is missing the point of a veil.

If you are fighting something with a superb skill and your own skills are only at good, then yes, you are going to have a bad time. You can make up for that by being way clever and using your better skills against your opponents worse skills with maneuvers, but a veil does not make you invincible, it is just one way to avoid the worst of being hit. Otherwise a veil with some specialization is an automatic "I win" spell.

I didn't say it ever made you invincible--it reduces the opponent's options, and makes it so you can't be directly attacked. I listed three or four ways up above that a smart opponent can still attack and root you out even if you're invisible.

Once again, the rulebooks specifically and explicitly note veils as not working like regular blocks against damage.

Under your interpretation, Molly should be dead a few times over. She's always been, up to Ghost Story, specifically noted as someone who doesn't have a lot of raw power to throw around, so there's no way she should've been able to hold off the Ick, or dozens of Red Court warriors at once if they could all just roll Fists to break through her veils and illusions.

[Cadd]

It's not about making him suck--it's about making him psychologically incapable of jumping, incapable of taking the jump in the first place, not incapable of making it once he does jump.

While I'm really on the fence between your approach and Haru's, that right there really, really looks like a compel on an aspect, such as one created via a maneuver.

[Mr. Death]

While I'm really on the fence between your approach and Haru's, that right there really, really looks like a compel on an aspect, such as one created via a maneuver.

That's definitely a way to do it--in fact, it's probably the easier and better way to do it. But as it still amounts to a way of blocking someone from doing something, I feel it should be something you can do with a block.

And even so, if it was a maneuver? They'd defend with Discipline. If it's an attack? Defend with discipline. But if it's a block, they can beat it with Athletics?

In the last thread discussing veils, I proposed something that my opponents never commented on. How about this: If you must allow someone to attack despite not being able to see through the block, treat it like a reverse ambush. If the gruff can't see Molly, but wants to swing wildly until he can hit her, then he's attacking from 0, while Molly uses her regular defense roll. She can see him and avoid him, while he can't see her, and thus can't really aim his strikes.

How does that sound to you, Haru?

[Haru]

But breaking through a mental block is not something done through physical prowess. Think of any athlete who's choked in the big game. Or that episode of BTAS where the Scarecrow is rigging games with his fear toxin.

Then I honestly question the validity of a mental block in the first place. Not everything that keeps someone from doing something has to be a block. If it is powerful enough that it keeps you from continuing the fight, it is a taken out result.
A block is always done as an inhibitor against certain actions. It is not a "mental block" that can only be overcome mentally. That's just not how they work. You might put the mental whammy on someone in order to keep them from doing something, but they don't have to spend an action to overcome the block and then do something. If that was the case, you could keep throwing up blocks and the other guy could not even come close to doing something against you, because he'd have to spend his action overcoming the block first, and in your next action, you renew the block, and it basically keeps going forever. No, you reduce someones effectiveness in some area, and depending on your character, you have different justifications to do so. You can incite him to be afraid of the jump, but he can try it anyway. You might call up a gale of wind that will make the jump harder. But at the end of the day, you are still trying to block his capability to jump.

Yes, but that sort of thing should work in a combat situation, too. If Harry's mindwhammied by Lara in the middle of a fight, can he just use Fists instead of Discipline to overcome it and deck her anyway? Even though he simply does not have the mental reserves to resist her?

If Harry is so mindwhammied by Lara that he can no longer fight, he is taken out and can no longer fight.

Honestly, even the grapple is, in my opinion, too weak in this interpretation. If you think about it, a grapple would do nothing to even slow down a dedicated speedster, even if they're already grabbed. Even someone with Might at 5 and Supernatural strength can't reliably hold onto someone who's got Athletics at 5 and Supernatural speed--even though, by all logic, once the guy who can bench press a car has his hands on you, you shouldn't be able to break his grip.

Again, if you aren't able to break his grip, the fight is over. If you still have a chance to break free, then you should be able to break free by any means at your disposal. The increased chance to take someone out in a grapple is easily represented by the increased stress someone with supernatural strength can inflict in a grapple.

Not really. That was just a random example of what I'm talking about--and it doesn't end the conflict (if there even is a conflict--maybe it's a race to the macguffin on the next rooftop), it just keeps the guy from moving on. As I said about veils there are other options--in this case, the mental block is a fear of heights, not a fear of decking the vampire in the teeth, or shooting the vampire (which, if successful, would get rid of the block).

If the whole scene is based on the two opponents chasing each other, and suddenly one of them can't move on, the fight is over. At least that's how I see it. Like I said, if it isn't a conflict, then it is probably a contest, and you don't even have blocks in a contest.

The point I'm trying to make is, with your interpretation, it's near impossible to block someone from using their apex skill, unless your own applicable skill is so high that you can just rely on defending anyway. To my reading, there should be a way to come at someone sideways so that they can't just blow through everything in a fight with their highest skill.

You can put up a block for someone who isn't good at defending themselves. And you can use skills to put up a block that you might not be able to use to defend yourself. Both excellent reasons to use blocks.

You can come at someone sideways, blocks just aren't the way to do it, that's what maneuvers are for.

She can't do all of that at once, though. If Molly casts a block, that's her turn--and if the gruffs can just swing wildly and reliably hit her, then that's a wasted turn, because her veil is down, in your interpretation.

She can do so in subsequent exchanges, and with equal skills, there is enough of a chance she comes out ok, as was the case.

But the point is, in the write up of veils as a special block, as I recall, it specifically calls it out as a way to avoid damage even if you don't have a lot of power to throw around. Using veils in your interpretation reduces it back to straight up power-vs-power, which I feel is missing the point of a veil.
I didn't say it ever made you invincible--it reduces the opponent's options, and makes it so you can't be directly attacked. I listed three or four ways up above that a smart opponent can still attack and root you out even if you're invisible.

It is a special block, if you are outside a conflict and want to stay that way. In that case, you veil, and every guard or whatever has to beat your veil before a conflict can even start. But once that's done, it is no more viable than any other sort of block. A very high numbered veil doesn't have to be by a very powerful wizard. Even if Molly had Conviction 5, she'd still have the aspect "subtlety is its own power", which should limit what kinds of spells she does.

But the really big part is the one I highlighted. Reducing someones options is pretty much exactly what a compel does. So if you want to do a veil that actually limits your opponents options, I think it is better to do it as a maneuver and invoke it for effect. "I am veiled, they can't see me, so they attack someone else".

This would probably explain the fight with the Ick as well. She creates the aspect, and then she spends some fate points on it to be veiled again and taunt the Ick so it would let go of Harry.

OR, mechanically what she did was a block to shield Harry and herself from the Ick. That would account for both the taunting and the invisibility, and she could have easily boosted the spell with fate points and consequences to make it work.

Once again, the rulebooks specifically and explicitly note veils as not working like regular blocks against damage.

Can you point me to that? I can't find anything about it under the paragraph about veils.

Under your interpretation, Molly should be dead a few times over. She's always been, up to Ghost Story, specifically noted as someone who doesn't have a lot of raw power to throw around, so there's no way she should've been able to hold off the Ick, or dozens of Red Court warriors at once if they could all just roll Fists to break through her veils and illusions.

Molly's grown quite a bit until Changes and might have gotten a few points of refresh and definitely skills. Also, I feel like that particular scene is more plot device than actual gameplay. On the other hand, Molly could simply be doing a "one woman rave" maneuver for Thomas to tag, when he is making a weapons block, since they are working together to keep the vamps back.

And even so, if it was a maneuver? They'd defend with Discipline. If it's an attack? Defend with discipline. But if it's a block, they can beat it with Athletics?

Yes, because you are doing different things. You could have discipline restrict athletics here, but having to spend an action in order to break free is just too much. Now again, you could put up an aspect, and the other one could feel the need to remove the aspect before he jumps. Or you could downright compel him to do so. But that's not what blocks are for.

In the last thread discussing veils, I proposed something that my opponents never commented on. How about this: If you must allow someone to attack despite not being able to see through the block, treat it like a reverse ambush. If the gruff can't see Molly, but wants to swing wildly until he can hit her, then he's attacking from 0, while Molly uses her regular defense roll. She can see him and avoid him, while he can't see her, and thus can't really aim his strikes.

How does that sound to you, Haru?

Still sounds like it should be a maneuver and the compel reduces the skill to 0. I still don't like that approach, because it just isn't really balanced. You could do a 1 shift veil against someone with a Legendary skill and a stunt, and he would just flail his arms around? Just seems weird.

The great strength about being able to veil is that you can choose when and who to fight. But if you are in the middle of a fight, you don't have access to those most powerful aspects of your arsenal, and you are going to have to improvise and have a hard time.

TL,DR:
My main point, I think is that only if it looks like a block, it doesn't have to be a block.

[Mr. Death]

Then I honestly question the validity of a mental block in the first place. Not everything that keeps someone from doing something has to be a block. If it is powerful enough that it keeps you from continuing the fight, it is a taken out result.
A block is always done as an inhibitor against certain actions. It is not a "mental block" that can only be overcome mentally. That's just not how they work. You might put the mental whammy on someone in order to keep them from doing something, but they don't have to spend an action to overcome the block and then do something. If that was the case, you could keep throwing up blocks and the other guy could not even come close to doing something against you, because he'd have to spend his action overcoming the block first, and in your next action, you renew the block, and it basically keeps going forever. No, you reduce someones effectiveness in some area, and depending on your character, you have different justifications to do so. You can incite him to be afraid of the jump, but he can try it anyway. You might call up a gale of wind that will make the jump harder. But at the end of the day, you are still trying to block his capability to jump.

I should clarify--I'm not saying the awareness check is its own action. The way I've done it in my games, the target does the awareness check, and then takes an action (since it doesn't take a full action to look around and see if you can see someone). Investigation might be a full action, since it's more involved.

Again, if you aren't able to break his grip, the fight is over. If you still have a chance to break free, then you should be able to break free by any means at your disposal. The increased chance to take someone out in a grapple is easily represented by the increased stress someone with supernatural strength can inflict in a grapple.
If the whole scene is based on the two opponents chasing each other, and suddenly one of them can't move on, the fight is over. At least that's how I see it. Like I said, if it isn't a conflict, then it is probably a contest, and you don't even have blocks in a contest.

The fight is not over if you can't immediately get out of a grapple with a single stat.

I'm not at all saying that any of the scenarios I'm presenting are "over" just because a single block isn't broken. What I'm saying is, some stats it just plain does not make sense for them to be able to break through a block. And Fists and Weapons are not, I feel, stats that should be able to make a perception check. The Flash can't get out of a grapple set by Gorilla Grod just by being fast if he's already been grabbed, for instance.

You can put up a block for someone who isn't good at defending themselves. And you can use skills to put up a block that you might not be able to use to defend yourself. Both excellent reasons to use blocks.

You can come at someone sideways, blocks just aren't the way to do it, that's what maneuvers are for.

But maneuvers only work against a single target unless you put extra power into it, and a veil is explicitly not a maneuver. Doing it this way, Molly and her veils simply cannot effectively defend her against more than one opponent, when we've seen that happen multiple times.

She can do so in subsequent exchanges, and with equal skills, there is enough of a chance she comes out ok, as was the case.

Except in your model, she is getting hit--and injured--that first turn and she has to try and recast her veil again the next round. She's down a consequence, two mental stress boxes, and one physical stress box before she can effectively do anything. Remember, the tie goes to the winner, meaning with equal skills, the opponent has a 61.73% chance of hitting her.

It is a special block, if you are outside a conflict and want to stay that way. In that case, you veil, and every guard or whatever has to beat your veil before a conflict can even start. But once that's done, it is no more viable than any other sort of block. A very high numbered veil doesn't have to be by a very powerful wizard. Even if Molly had Conviction 5, she'd still have the aspect "subtlety is its own power", which should limit what kinds of spells she does.

But the really big part is the one I highlighted. Reducing someones options is pretty much exactly what a compel does. So if you want to do a veil that actually limits your opponents options, I think it is better to do it as a maneuver and invoke it for effect. "I am veiled, they can't see me, so they attack someone else".

This would probably explain the fight with the Ick as well. She creates the aspect, and then she spends some fate points on it to be veiled again and taunt the Ick so it would let go of Harry.

OR, mechanically what she did was a block to shield Harry and herself from the Ick. That would account for both the taunting and the invisibility, and she could have easily boosted the spell with fate points and consequences to make it work.

This all runs counter to what the book says--the book does not say "a veil is special, but only in this one particular circumstance," it says a veil is a special type of block that defends you by preventing perception explicitly instead of blocking attacks. You are suggesting that a veil should work by directly blocking attacks.

By your model, Molly has to spend fate points left and right to keep from being attacked, which brings up the question, what's the point of her using the veil at all? And that's putting aside the question of whether you can compel someone else using an aspect on yourself.

Can you point me to that? I can't find anything about it under the paragraph about veils.

YS 252. I don't have the book in front of me, but in the other thread on veils I cited it:

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.

Molly's grown quite a bit until Changes and might have gotten a few points of refresh and definitely skills. Also, I feel like that particular scene is more plot device than actual gameplay. On the other hand, Molly could simply be doing a "one woman rave" maneuver for Thomas to tag, when he is making a weapons block, since they are working together to keep the vamps back.

Except the effect of Molly's illusion is not to give Thomas a single free tag on an attack, it is keeping one whole side of the line of battle from coming through. That's a block, one that, if it could be broken by straight attack stats, would have been.

Yes, because you are doing different things. You could have discipline restrict athletics here, but having to spend an action in order to break free is just too much. Now again, you could put up an aspect, and the other one could feel the need to remove the aspect before he jumps. Or you could downright compel him to do so. But that's not what blocks are for.

As I said before, I'm not considering the Awareness (or in this case, Discipline) check to be a separate, distinct action. It's a declaration, effectively. Anyway, as I said before, the maneuver/compel is a better way to model this instance.

Still sounds like it should be a maneuver and the compel reduces the skill to 0. I still don't like that approach, because it just isn't really balanced. You could do a 1 shift veil against someone with a Legendary skill and a stunt, and he would just flail his arms around? Just seems weird.

If guy's got Legendary skill and a stunt, I find it hard to believe he doesn't have some kind of perception skill above 1. Also, I imagine someone with legendary skill and a stunt would be smarter than just flailing his arms around--see where I said, before, about there being several options for getting around a veil just off the top of my head.

I'd really like you to stop treating it as if I'm saying that a veil should make someone invincible and win instantly. I have not said that at all, and have offered several ways that a character can get around a veil if they're smart about it.

The great strength about being able to veil is that you can choose when and who to fight. But if you are in the middle of a fight, you don't have access to those most powerful aspects of your arsenal, and you are going to have to improvise and have a hard time.

Except Molly doesn't have a hard time. Molly is directly targeted by powerful creatures, then veils, and then is able to completely escape any injury at all (give or take a can of paint). Molly is able to keep herself from being attacked by a whole mob of Fomor servitors with one action.

TL,DR:
My main point, I think is that only if it looks like a block, it doesn't have to be a block.

Even if the book directly and explicitly calls it a block, treats it like a block, and calls it a special block? When its purpose is to block an action (perception, and things that come with it)? There's no question about whether veils are blocks--they are, and Molly's spells are set up as blocks. Maneuvering simply does not cover the sorts of things that we're shown and told veils can do.

[Mr. Death]

For reference's sake:

Blocks are usually set up as a defense against
damage—particularly if the wizard is especially
focused on combat. But not all wizards are, and
in such cases a blocking spell can be used as
something other than a shield—an evocation based
veil, for example, is often done as a block,
but what it blocks isn’t damage, it’s perception

A special kind of block called a veil is the
special province of spirit magic. Unlike a normal
block, the power invested in a veil serves as
the difficulty for using skills or other magic
to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil

The deeper veil treatment on 276 only really talks about the mechanics of casting one, rather than what it's supposed to do, so I won't quote that at the moment.

[Haru]

Sorry to leave you hanging, I had an exam today and it got late and I got cranky, and the discussion was heated enough as it was. Now I think I have a clearer head to continue.

We read the same text, that's not the problem. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that we interpret it differently.

The roll you do to determine if the attacker can see the veiled target is, to me, inside the attack roll already. The idea is, that you only roll on the main action you are doing. In the case of a physical conflict, that's an attack. I wouldn't do 2 rolls, simply because I feel it slows the game down too much in that moment. I like to focus on the main stuff only.

The second thing is how "block to perception" can be interpreted. Granted, your way is absolutely valid, but like I said, to me it is over-complicating things. The main thing, to me, is how things are worded. It's saying that it is a block against perception, not against damage, and so far, I'm with you. But we differ on how that translates into mechanics.
For you, that means there has to be a perception check to overcome the block, since that's what it's blocking.
For me, the wording is important here. Because it says "damage" instead of "stress", it is completely on the narrative side for me. Yes, it is not blocking damage, like a force shield like Harry uses it would. It is blocking perception, making it harder for an opponent to strike you so it hurts. Ultimately, I think they are doing the same thing, they are trying to protect their user from getting turned to catfood. You could also do a block that's basically a cloud of hornets flying around your opponents head, distracting him. Or cloning yourself magically, having 5 copies of you running around is going to make it harder for your opponent to hit you. And still, all those versions of a block are exactly the same under the hood to me. They are all intended to keep their user from harm. Sometimes they will be successful, sometimes not.

I know there are ways around your version, I never contested that, that's why I didn't bring it up. It just wasn't the core of what I was trying to say.

A veil still has uses beyond just being a differently flavored block. Once you can get out of the zone you originally were in, I'd actually let people spend their action to try and find you. But that can be a number of ways. Looking around for something fishy, sensing for a disturbance in the force, hacking and slashing everything in sight, pretending to give up and listen for the sigh of relief (deceit), and so forth. As long as you can give me a cool description with a decent justification, I'm game.

And I still stay by the argument that if your skills are significantly lower than your opponents, you are going to have a bad time. You will have to come crazy prepared, loaded with fate points and you need some good luck to make it work to your advantage. If you can't do that, concede, prepare better, fight again.

[Taran]

Mr. Death and I had this exact argument and I have to say that I agree with haru.

[Mr. Death]

We read the same text, that's not the problem. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that we interpret it differently.

Aye, but you were asking for the page quote for one thing, so I figured it best to C+P all the applicable text I could find, just to make sure everyone's working from the same basis.

The roll you do to determine if the attacker can see the veiled target is, to me, inside the attack roll already. The idea is, that you only roll on the main action you are doing. In the case of a physical conflict, that's an attack. I wouldn't do 2 rolls, simply because I feel it slows the game down too much in that moment. I like to focus on the main stuff only.

My main issue with that is that Fists, Weapons, Guns, they simply do not have perception trappings. To my mind, they have no more business detecting a veil than Investigation does in dodging attacks. Fists, Weapons, and Guns just are not applicable to finding someone (except, perhaps, if you're using Guns to spray the whole zone with bullets).

For me, the wording is important here. Because it says "damage" instead of "stress", it is completely on the narrative side for me. Yes, it is not blocking damage, like a force shield like Harry uses it would. It is blocking perception, making it harder for an opponent to strike you so it hurts. Ultimately, I think they are doing the same thing, they are trying to protect their user from getting turned to catfood.

There's a flaw in that logic, though--simply not being in the area is also, ultimately, trying to protect oneself from getting turned to catfood, but if someone rolls Athletics, gets a 3, and thus sprints three zones away, that doesn't mean that you can roll a 4 with Weapons and say that represents you also running three zones to hit him.

You could also do a block that's basically a cloud of hornets flying around your opponents head, distracting him. Or cloning yourself magically, having 5 copies of you running around is going to make it harder for your opponent to hit you. And still, all those versions of a block are exactly the same under the hood to me. They are all intended to keep their user from harm. Sometimes they will be successful, sometimes not.

But "keep their user from harm" is just too broad of a hood. I could argue that my attack roll is, ultimately, to keep my character from harm--but if I don't have a stunt, I can't use Fists or Weapons to dodge gunfire.

I know there are ways around your version, I never contested that, that's why I didn't bring it up. It just wasn't the core of what I was trying to say.

Fair enough, but you kept saying the fight was over and won if someone couldn't break through a single block.

A veil still has uses beyond just being a differently flavored block. Once you can get out of the zone you originally were in, I'd actually let people spend their action to try and find you. But that can be a number of ways. Looking around for something fishy, sensing for a disturbance in the force, hacking and slashing everything in sight, pretending to give up and listen for the sigh of relief (deceit), and so forth. As long as you can give me a cool description with a decent justification, I'm game.

Yes, but hacking and slashing, or swinging punches, or firing wildly aren't ways to find someone and land a solid hit. I mean, put it this way. If an average zone is 20 feet by 20 feet, the person veils, you can't see or hear them. At most, someone's going to be able to hit 15 or so feet in area around them at any one time (assuming an armspan of around 5 feet times pi-ish)--the caster has 400 feet to hide in. Do you really think someone swinging their fists around is a way to find the caster? Especially considering they can see you, and are going to be getting out of the way? It'd frankly be a miracle for them to hit them like that and land the full strength hit, let alone the 40-60% chance your model has, unless they already know where the person is.

Hell, for that matter, how is the attacker in this case even sure the caster's still in the zone in the first place? A caster could easily veil and hop over to the next zone with a supplemental action, after all.

I might accept using Weapons, Fists, or Guns to attack if there was some penalty to it--like the Guns attack has to spray the whole zone, or maybe Weapons or Fists lose their weapon ratings, because there's no way you can properly aim or power a strike if you don't know what you're hitting. But it just does not make sense for me for someone to be allowed to make an aimed, full-power hit on someone with a veil if the skills dictate that said person should have no idea whatsoever where they are.

I'm just imagining the conversation, like "Okay, I veil." "He attacks you." "How?" "He's swinging his sword at you." "No, I mean, his Alertness is 1, that's a 5-shift veil. How does he know where I am to attack me?" "Well, he's swinging his sword around the whole zone." "And he hits only me? He's swinging his sword wide enough to cover an entire livingroom to find me, but nobody else gets hit?" "Yes." "And he's wildly swinging his sword, unaimed, and is doing the exact same damage he'd be doing if he could just hit me normally." "Yes." "Why did I bother with a veil, then?"

And I still stay by the argument that if your skills are significantly lower than your opponents, you are going to have a bad time. You will have to come crazy prepared, loaded with fate points and you need some good luck to make it work to your advantage. If you can't do that, concede, prepare better, fight again.

And the veiler, if they're someone who veils because they're low powered and not geared toward offense, is still going to have a bad time--remember for all of Molly's powers of invisibility, she can only kill anything by tricking them into dying.