A question about complex tests. When the patrol are confronted with a complex test, should one, and only one, of the patrol members roll all the obstacles (with help dice from the others), or can the different obstacles be divided within the group, one for each player, for example?
I think it depends on what’s going on in the story, although I don’t have my book on hand. If I was running it, I’d talk it out with everyone and see what everyone was doing. Those that test may have more risk to deal with, but they also get tests for advancement.
I don’t have the book in front of me either, but in my experience, complex obstacles are a team effort–Survivalist mouse does her thing, Boatcrafter mouse does his thing, etc. Typically one mouse is the best in the patrol at one of the necessary skills. As GM, I see complex obstacles as an opportunity to get multiple players involved in a mission obstacle, without diverting to a full conflict, rather than as an opportunity to make the obstacle more challenging.
Thanks, seems nice and logical!
Another question, this one regarding the defend action in conflicts:
let’s assume that two mouse teams are fighting one snake. Team A attacks, team B defends and the snake attacks team A. Team A fights the snake and rolls the dice, but what does the defending mouse team do? They’re defending against an enemy that isn’t attacking them (specifically). where can I find the rules about this situation in the book?
This seems familiar…ah, yes.
I got the impression, reading p. 107, that the Defend Action is matched with it’s targets Action regardless of the opponents target. Attack and Maneuver is a versus test, Defend is a independent, Feint is a no test. The only time a Defend is an independent test is when it’s versus another Defend. I’m probably overanalyzing this, but I don’t get where the book says otherwise (that a defend must have someone targeting them, otherwise it’s an independent test).
What is it I’m missing?
Well, why would my defensive actions only be effective if you also defend? If we both defend, we’re testing how good our defenses are, seperately. Effectively, how much better a defensive position we’re each now in (represented by disposition). If you don’t test, my defend is doing the same thing it was when you defended, improving my defense.
Doesn’t the snake get to attack both teams?
Depends on the goals. With the right goals, you can envision a move that attacks both teams, like “drive the mice away from my nest.”
if the snake is just biting folk, then he’s only going to be able to attack one team.
Yeah, with you completely. Sounds like a perfectly logical way of handling the situation. It’s just that I’ve been reading the pages mentioned in the thread you linked over and over, and I can’t find this particular situation mentioned there. Maybe it’s just one of those things one should just “get”. I’m probably just not as bright as my humble mother used to tell me 
This isn’t something that is directly stated in the rulebook (from memory), more of a “common sense” interpretation of what should happen. Defend is a versus test against Attack because it reduces the effectiveness of the Attack; so how does that work when you Defend against an Attack pointed at another team? If you test is as a versus test, then you’re saying that the Attack which poses no risk to you will impact your ability to Defend, and the effectiveness of your Defend will have no impact on the Attack. This feels weird as is basically a versus test that ignores half of the outcome. Going down that line of thought brings to mind a number of arguments that could make the whole thing quite fiddly, and seem to be stretching the RAW even further. If you want to say that the Attack does not affect the Defend (or vice versa), then it makes sense for it to be an independent test, which would be Ob3. This feels better to me personally, as it’s consistent with the idea that Defend is versus against Attack and Maneuver as it’s reducing their effectiveness, whereas it’s independent against Defend as the two Defends don’t affect one another.
A lot of it will really come down to how you run and describe your conflicts. If the Defending team is in the thick of a melee, for example, then if might make sense for it to be versus; but I can see it feeling a little clunky in certain situations.
We could read it that our defends are interacting in some way that is not present if only one of us acts. So, no independent test if its not opposed by a defend. If you’re consistent it won’t harm anything.
Also, an unopposed Attack is an independent test. So, symmetry.