Aspects in a conflict

[Arcteryx]

Example: the PCs are in a bar fight, and they've just taken out the gang boss's hired help - they now outnumber him 3 to 1. How does the PC place an Aspect "Outnumbered And Outgunned" on the situation? He wants to use it to tag for an Intimidation action.

Does he maneuver to apply that Aspect? Or does it appear on the scene because its reasonable and true, but the PC needs to apply some mechanic to stick it on the scene?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Maneuver using intimidation, defended by the target, which can be tagged as normal, or invoked in later exchanges if it is sticky.

[Papa Gruff]

If the PC want to make sure the aspect is present a maneuver is the way to go like MyNinja said. Problem is, that the gang boss gets to defend against the intimidation attempt.

An other way to go is to asses the scene to discover the aspect that might have been established after the victory in the bar fight. In character it would represent that PCs full awareness of their advantage against the boss. As a matter of fact, doing it this way might be easier then maneuvering on the boss, as he doesn't get to defend against it.

Finally both ways might be combined to get even more of a boost. Question is: does it make sense to enter a social conflict after the physical has been resolved? The gang boss and his cronies are beaten. He probably knows it as well as the PC. Isn't it likely that he will give the PC all they want to save his hide?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

...Unless he is going to lie to them. 

For what it is worth, I generally encourage something like this as a maneuver, because it doesn't fall under declarations per say. Most importantly though, when a player asks me how he should do something like that, I try to think if it would be:

a) Something that we could imagine the character saying ("Hey, Chuckles, there's three of us, and we just took your boys out like they were week old garbage. Feel like talking yet?")
or
b) Something that is just a fact of reality, not directly tied into the actions of the characters, but that others might react to (In a war zone, it might be reasonable for a character to ask if it was noisy, and for me to then place the aspect CONSTANT EXPLOSIONS on the scene, or GODDAMN TERRIFYING for that matter)

This seems to fall in the a) category for me, which means I would want to treat it as a maneuver, because it is the result of an action by one character designed to influence another. This is the sort of thing I think one should be able to defend against, because there's a big difference between a corner drug dealer and John Marcone, and being outnumbered shouldn't affect them both the same.

[mostlyawake]

Have the two PCs with lower intimidation scores both make maneuvers (their weapon skill versus opponent's.. presence? conviction? whatever seems most appropriate) to each place an aspect of "obviously outnumbered and outgunned" or w/e on the baddie.

Have the intimidator (if he has it) use scholarship to declare that the dudes on the floor are going to take months to recover, and might not ever walk properly again (probably true regardless).

Now tag it all for a +6 intimidation roll, saying "You're obviously outnumbered and outgunned here, so unless you want to end up like your goon here -who's going to be in traction for months, physical therapy for years, and may still never walk properly again - why don't you [insert demand]?"

Wee! One round, huge bonus, and go. This probably will be all it takes to  get him talking.

Teamwork = win.