Actually, no, they negate *both* kinds of Multiple Opponent penalties. ("Followers and Multiple Opponents" - HQ 79). What they don't do is *impose* MO penalties on your opponent - If I'm all alone and am facing a guy with 3 followers, there is no MO penalty since there is only one "Die Rolling Entity" facing me.
> Dealing with Bryan's example first...
>
> >Now Dan wants to join the combat. The goal is for Bob to have no
> >penalty against the third attacker, and only -3 against the fourth.
> >Dan can't add his AP to Bob at this point. He could augment him, or
> >loan him AP I suppose. How would you rule what is sufficient
> >commitment to count as a third defender?
>
> I'd agree Dan can't just add his AP to Bob, P67 seems clear that this is
> only an option at the start of a contest. So it looks like either
> Loaning AP or Augmenting, would be appropriate. The description of
> loaning AP on p71 seems more concerned with a PC loaning AP to another
> PC, rather than followers. It doesn't suggest what happens to the
> loaner if the main actor loses the contest, whereas the rules on
> augmentation p80 are explicit that the augmentor suffers defeat as
> normal. However if you justify the loaning of AP's by saying Dan is
> joining the contest then having him suffer any consequences of defeat
> seems more than justified.
I don't allow a Follower to loan AP using the AP lending rules - the Follower is simply another facet of the character, not a separate entity (at least for the purposes of the dice rolling mechanics). So if Bob wants Dan's AP, Dan will be in the thick of things, not "throwing him a sword or jeering at the opponent" (HQ 71).
RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
done what he has done.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail