Couple of questions

(1)  For GM Fallout, Acolyte and Slave bonds are never listed as something to reveal.  I think it makes sense that in a conflict involving either, assuming they are "active" post conflict and it wasn't revealed via the conflict, one of those is valid as fallout.  Views?

(2)  For "circumstances taken as Fallout", any experience with how often players take those?  Only when it flows from what the Monster was trying for? (e.g., the stakes were angling that the Monster/Acolyte/Slave gets you Alone or Unprepared etc. - since Circumstance changes can be a stake, Monster/Acolyte/Slave lost but you decide the fallout was bad enough you'll go with that anyway).  For some players they would be considered fun but others would not want to invite such trouble (unless they were really at a loss of what to do next and such guaranteed 'additional grist for mill' desired).

(3)  Initial setup, any views on requiring that players take different circumstances?  Also on playing through those (dealing with Alone first) as exposures to Victim, Monster, influences of events etc. as the equivalent of "initiation" from DiTV?  For a "first adventure" it also provides some basis to connect various characters as "involved and cooperating" through scripting (e.g., they are the 3 or 4 who have reason to see something more at work, by chance were present at the right time to see something at work etc.).