Three fighters. A wants to Engage with B. B wants to Disengage. C wants to Engage A. A out rolls everyone. A is now Engaged with B at A’s advantage. Does C fail altogether to Engage A or are they now Engaged at A’s advantage? If it matters, A would prefer to not be engaged with C but it seemed strange for him to avoid it altogether.
We said that A was now Engaged with both B and C, at A’s advantage to both.
Four fighters. W and X want to Engage Y and Z respectively. Y and Z want to Disengage and Y specifically states he wants to help Z to do so. Can folks help each other with positioning if their intents are the same?
3 fighters. A has B in a lock. Neither can engage or vie for position now. C wants to engage B. Im assuming this is automatic and at C’s advantage? That’s how we did it.
If there’s a melee going down with folks everywhere and A wants to engage B but B successfully disengages, is A just sort of floating now, taking actions per Eye of the Storm? Or may he immediately attempt to Engage another target, as if he had successfully disengaged and was looking for a new target per Disengaging From Your Opponent p. 461?
They’re now acting as a group. If two people were chopping down a tree, would you let them both give a helping die to each other? No, one would do it, the other would help.
Yes, sorry, that’s what I meant. In our occurrence Z held a +1 Ob from a superficial wound and Y wanted to help get him out of combat. Since Z was an NPC I let Y make the Disengage roll with a helping die from Z. I think technically Z should have made the roll (since he was slower) and got the helping dice from Y.
Either way, yeah, they were a group then and for simplicity’s sake I just had the NPC help with Y’s actions for the exchange. Technically that wasn’t mandatory though right? You can position as a team but script your own actions, as per the Mooks paragraph, right?