Engage and disengage... again...

[Verax]

We’ve seen enough threads on this that I hate to open another, but here goes:

In our last game we had a Fight where Player A had fried his opponent with White Fire (no arcing… yay!), and then turned his attention to the opponent © getting the best of his friend (B). At the end of the exchange, B was engaged with C and A was unengaged. A wanted to engage C. C was happy to vie for position with B, but didn’t want anything to do with A. Can C avoid being engaged by A while remaining engaged with B?

A follow-up would be whether you can “selectively disengage” from opponents. If you are fighting 2-on-1, can you vie for position with one opponent and disengage from the other? (or would you have to disengage from both, and then, if successful, reengage with one of them?)

[Jimbozig]

I’ve been wrong before in threads like this, but failure is how we improve our skills so I’ll have a go at this one.

The answer is no. He has to either disengage or vie for position. If he vies for position, he only rolls once and compares his successes to both opponents - so he could be at the advantage for one and at a disadvantage for the other. If he disengages, his roll is again compared to both. If he really wants to be engaged with B but not A, perhaps his best bet is to disengage and hope B beats him and A doesn’t.

[Justin_in_Oz]

Why not disengage from both. Then engage with the one you want. You have to beat them twice, but you get just what you want.

[Verax]

@Jimbozig

I’ve been wrong before in threads like this, but failure is how we improve our skills so I’ll have a go at this one.

The answer is no. He has to either disengage or vie for position. If he vies for position, he only rolls once and compares his successes to both opponents - so he could be at the advantage for one and at a disadvantage for the other. If he disengages, his roll is again compared to both. If he really wants to be engaged with B but not A, perhaps his best bet is to disengage and hope B beats him and A doesn’t.

This is how we played it (though we didn’t think of disengaging from both at the time), so if you’re wrong, you’re in good company (at least from my perspective…).

@Justin_in_Oz

Why not disengage from both. Then engage with the one you want. You have to beat them twice, but you get just what you want.

Sounds good to me. You’re right, it’s harder… but it probably should be.

[Wurzel]

@Verax

This is how we played it (though we didn’t think of disengaging from both at the time), so if you’re wrong, you’re in good company (at least from my perspective…).

Sounds good to me. You’re right, it’s harder… but it probably should be.

Depending on the situation, I can see an intent of “I stay engaged with B but keep away from A” make sense. In which case, they Vie for Position and try to beat A and B. No matter your intent, I’d say you can’t roll to disengage and vie for position on the same exchange.

[luke (Luke Wheel)]

When you advance into combat, there’s no mincing. No “I’m not going to fight THAT guy, but I’ll fight THIS guy.” You wade in and attempt to put yourself at your best advantage. So when you engage, you’re trying to get your best advantage over everyone squaring off with you. There is no split intent engagement test. Being outnumbered is troublesome. And if you’re outnumbered, you should probably withdraw…unless you’re confident you can press home your attack and quickly win the day.