Ok, so as an example of why I am asking:
Situation 1: We have a hunter engaged with 3 ungors henchmen. During his turn, he disengages (free manoeuvre) , then use his Ranged Shot action (requirement: not engaged with an enemy). He has no penalty doing either the disengagement or the ranged shot action. When it's the Ungors turns, they will use their manoeuvres to re-engage, and the scenario can repeat.
Situation 2: We have a hunter engaged with 3 ungors henchmen. During his turn, he use his Close-Quarters Shot action (requirement: close range or engaged with target). He has to add 3 misfortune dices to his dice pool, because he is engaged with the 3 ungors, as per the action card. When it's the Ungors turns, they don't need to re-engage, and the scenario can repeat… probably with a dead hunter soon since 3 misfortune dices is hard to overcome.
So, why would a PC stay to choose engaged, when disengaging is a free manoeuvre, and there are no penalty for disengaging.
By the way, I am not criticizing the system, it makes figthing faster without bothering with lots of modifiers or free attacks on disengagement. I am simply curious as to what GMs end up doing, either sticking with the rules like Doc and Spivo (and myself so far), or adding modifiers to the Ranged Shot action in situation 1, or else?