Because that is a different game system that worked differently.

The dices and the character progression maybe different but there are core elements that remain the same because they take them from the star wars lore.

Bind seems clearly meant to be used for force grip/crush (ala Darth Vader) and a milder form of force grip to immobilizing people and cause strain and other negative affects to shut them down (without harming them).

There is a control upgrade that allows you to move the target but it does no damage.

So why use Bind? Because unlike Move it lets you lock people down (a light-side use) or inflict Critical Wounds on targets (dark-side use).

Bind can also be used to simulate Morichro and Malacia (we may see these powers introduced in F&D splat books but Bind can be used to recreate either or these).

Move's hurl Control Upgrade seems clearly meant to do damage by throwing things at people or throwing people around (force slam).

If a player wants to narratively move a target either can fit depending on what the intent is.

Are you trying to do direct damage by throwing the target into something? Then Move is the relevant power.

Are you trying to do direct damage by throwing something into the target? Then Move is the relevant power.

Are you trying to do indirect damage by moving a target (and dropping them or pushing them off of a cliff)? Either could be used.

Are you trying to move an ally to a different location? Either could be used (the PC would likely not use the hurl Control Upgrade and just use the Basic power) though Bind will immobilize them for a turn (so it's a less refined way of relocating someone if they're friendly).

I'm big with the narrative. But to me you'd use move to smash a rock into them and shove them off the cliff, while Bind is what you use on the person themselves. As you pointed out, it's already pretty crazy what a good force user with full Move can do. Let people with Bind have their thing. Otherwise why have the Bind power at all? Move for inanimate, Bind for living things connected to the force. Why? Who cares? It's all just magic, so go with what happens in the films and is balanced in game.

The problem with limiting move in such a broad way as "Can't effect living creatures." is that it also limits narrative use of it. The character who didn't take Bind because immobilizing/choking/ripping enemies with the force isn't his thing now can't save his friends with a well timed use of Move that he did take to retrieve objects and the like.

It's far more flexible to say that move can't copy the primary, or unique, effects of bind. Like holding an enemy in the air to keep them still or trying to tear off a limb (dealing a critical). The movement part of bind is not it's main purpose, it's something you can do while immobilizing/choking/ripping your target.

You seem to forget that bind basic power last until the end of your next turn. So in your exemple, your dark jedi should be paralysed agaisnt the wall, like Maul and Savage Opress agaisnt Palpatine, one more round, as your mental strenght hold or crush him, not just standing back on his feet and running after you after hitting the wall.

The book clearly said you can move a living target with Move. (Both sidebar at page 283 and 287 of FaD core book) Now you can house rule the contrary if you want but it is the realm of house ruling not rule discussion.

It seems strange to me that some people keep trying to limit the power more than the Devs expressly intended. I will give the flight part seems lame and is only in a couple legends books. But moving people is clearly in several episodes of the Clone wars. Obi-wan and Anakin even do it in their lightsaber duel where they end up flinging each other across the room. And Yoda slams 2 imperial guard against the wall. True the Jedi seem to mostly restrict it to flinging droids. But i think that has more to do with who they were fighting.

I'm sure the Emperor tried to fly he just failed his coordination check to arrest his fall before he hit the reactor core.

I'm sure the Emperor tried to fly he just failed his coordination check to arrest his fall before he hit the reactor core.

He should have missed. That is how you fly.

So, I have a similiar thread over in the EotE Forum (see https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192427-slamming-peoplethings-into-walls-with-force-move/#entry1871055), and I wanted to ask what folks here thought about this issue.

On Bind versus Move, it seems to me that the question comes down to what you’re doing with your virtual hand.

Are gripping someone and potentially squeezing the life out of them? If so, then that would be Bind.

Are you pushing or lifting someone or something with your open hand? If so, then you’d be using Move.

But that leaves open the question of pulling — Bind or Move?

Towards the end of the “Star Wars: Rebels” episode titled “Always Two There Are”, we see the Fifth Brother and Seventh Sister using one or the other of these powers to pull the Phantom back from leaving the landing bay. When Sabine starts firing her pistols at the two Inquisitors and causes the Fifth Brother to have to go into defensive Reflect mode, the Seventh Sister says “I can’t hold them by myself”, and then she gets pulled towards the exit as the Phantom speeds towards the door that is closing. I did note that their hands are open while doing a Force Pull on the Phantom, but I don’t know for sure if that means anything.

So, was that Bind or Move?

I don’t agree that Bind can only be used on Organic and Move used on Inorganic. That almost fits the examples we have from the movies and the cartoons, but not quite.

I do agree that you can’t use the base Move power on yourself, but I would imagine that there are some Control upgrades that would allow that option, at least with regards to Levitation. We don’t see any Jedi flying through the air like Superman, not even at 60mph/100kph, but we do see Master Yoda being able to levitate himself as part of a meditation practice, although I don’t think we have any examples of anyone else being able to do that. So, maybe Levitation is a Mastery upgrade?

Of course, this would mean that you could use the body of another person like a surfboard, which I would also disagree with.

I think Luke's one handed push-up is also an example of someone levitating themself. I just don't see that happening as a purely physical thing with his build.

I would also say that pulling a spacecraft backwards is move. It's move involving strength upgrades and a GM (plot-ability) to let them combine their strength. If they could have used bind to squish the Phantom like a grape I think they would have.

I think Luke's one handed push-up is also an example of someone levitating themself. I just don't see that happening as a purely physical thing with his build.

I would also say that pulling a spacecraft backwards is move. It's move involving strength upgrades and a GM (plot-ability) to let them combine their strength. If they could have used bind to squish the Phantom like a grape I think they would have.

Nah, Luke's handstand is him using Enhance on an Athletics or Coordination check.

As for the ship, I agree; Bind is used on living creatures only, while Move can be used on anything. Holding a ship would be a Discipline check against a very high difficulty, upgraded multiple times and with A LOT of setback dice for trying to counteract the working engine on a starship.

I dont move the living target but i move his belt...he just so happens to be attached to it.

I dont move the living target but i move his belt...he just so happens to be attached to it.

...until he unbuckle it. Now you waste your turn moving a belt in the air congrats.

I dont move the living target but i move his belt...he just so happens to be attached to it.

This opens a can of worms... you could move a person with no strength upgrade because "I'm just moving the silhoutte 0 belt." I wouldn't allow that.

I dont move the living target but i move his belt...he just so happens to be attached to it.

This opens a can of worms... you could move a person with no strength upgrade because "I'm just moving the silhoutte 0 belt." I wouldn't allow that.

This is precisely why, in systems like D&D and Pathfinder, when you use a spell on an item held, worn or carried by an individual you use that individual's saves to counter the effect. Same thinking applies here, that's why it's an opposed check.

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

If anything I think the devs felt trapped by the small size of the Move tree while wanting to give all players the ability to go to a Force Unleashed level if they wanted to. I'd have been happier with a much toned down, more of a tactical/utility power than a weaponized power, with weaponization/Force Unleashed stuff saved for a Signature Ability. But it's too late now.

It's almost to the point you have to be ready to adjudicate/houserule each usage on a case by case basis in order to keep a certain flavour. I can tolerate Move as a Force slam without the targets actually slamming into anything ... just narrate it as a major concussion ala Mace in the TCW Ryloth arc. But 40 points of damage seems really high for not much XP investment, so I'd probably cap it at 10 per extra pip spent.

Simply grabbing someone and moving them from place to place, or lifting them up high (without damage, but clearly restrained) seems to violate what Move is mainly for, and also seems to require a new level of knowledge when we see the canon characters in action, so that's what Bind is for.

In short: Move = bursts of damage to living and non-living objects; controlled moving of non-living objects. Bind = controlled moving and damage of living objects.

The line is fuzzy, so again, for me it would be a case-by-case basis.

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

I'm not opposed to an official errata - more clarity is always good and the use of 'object' without any qualifications or exceptions can be unclear.

A pure force slam is simply throwing the target against the ground (or 'hitting' them with the force knocking them down or back) - so a Sil 1 target sets the difficulty and determines the damage. It makes sense to me that the larger the Sil the more damage it takes because the more force required to move/slam/affect it - and the greater the Sil the more mass/energy there is in the collision.

I agree that holding a person with Move should really be accomplished using Bind. I don't see any upgrades in the Move tree which let you hold someone. Fling them around the battlefield? Yes. Knock them off their feet? Yes. Actually hold them in place? No. That's clearly Bind.

I have no idea if the devs really over looked something and using Move for force slam is a "quick fix" but I think that Move works perfectly fine to do this.

Levitation of a willing target also seems to fit within Move's core power and Bind's Control Upgrade that lets you move a target one range band further/closer - though it seems to me to fit more closely with Move's basic power.

The only case of levitation I can think of from the movies is when Luke is training with Yoda. He's levitating rocks and R2. That seems like a clear use of Move and not Bind to me.

Alternatively, I'd let a player use Bind on objects to immobilize them. Say a speeder or a door.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

They use the word "object like Wizard of the Coast use the word "monster" in DnD to describe everyone to save space in the book. Plus last time I check, people have a mass, a size and a density like non-living object so if a corps is not an object, what are we? Spirits?

Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

They use the word "object like Wizard of the Coast use the word "monster" in DnD to describe everyone to save space in the book. Plus last time I check, people have a mass, a size and a density like non-living object so if a corps is not an object, what are we? Spirits?

Does it truly matter or ruin the game? No, not at all. However, since it's come up time and again it wouldn't hurt for there to be a posted errata. Not to "Gotcha'!" the developers (they really have done an incredible job with the game) but it would be a place to find or be pointed to without debate. A great way to put this to bed would be to add something to an existing rank of Control

Also, not to be argumentative, but Force slamming a Sil 4 object shouldn't cause more damage to said object, IMO. In fact, one might argue it does less. If you can muster the will to slam a Sil 4 object with 40 points of damage, why can't you do this to a stormtrooper? As narrative as the system is, that pushes past my personal limit of credibility. Sadly, I really haven't come up with a good way to account for damage this way.

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

Devs have clarified it multiple times. Move is how you do force slam and works on people. It even has examples in the books that have move being used on people. Why are we still arguing about this. The devs have been very clear you can use move on people. Important NPCs and PCs can resist using the resisting force powers sidebar.

I didn't know anything about the developer clarification(s) until I picked through the forums. Also, the core book should be the basis, not supplements. Putting these two bits together creates a good reason to have an update on the official downloads page (if it's there now, great. I haven't looked in a while). It's not for most of us here as we already know. However, it gets asked, then debated, time and again, so having it placed there for new players is a good thing. The one sticking point I still have is damage. As it stands there is no clarification that I've seen.

I didn't know anything about the developer clarification(s) until I picked through the forums. Also, the core book should be the basis, not supplements. Putting these two bits together creates a good reason to have an update on the official downloads page (if it's there now, great. I haven't looked in a while). It's not for most of us here as we already know. However, it gets asked, then debated, time and again, so having it placed there for new players is a good thing. The one sticking point I still have is damage. As it stands there is no clarification that I've seen.

What clarification is needed on damage?

The rules in the book pretty clearly state that damage is based upon the Silhouette of what's thrown, and that successes from the Discipline check are added into the damage since hurled objects are treated as ranged attacks, and for attacks you add the successes from the attack roll into the damage value.

Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:Alderaan Crumbs, on 17 Nov 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

I feel this needs an official errata, complete with clear rules. If the developers hadn't chimed in, there would be no basis for arguing that Move affects people* (I disagree that people are objects) be it a Force slam, levitation or flight. Even with the developers saying so, there are still "wonky" bits; how do you figure the damage of Force slam (just hitting something with pure Force energy, not causing it to collide with something else)? Using Silhouette doesn't make sense because the larger an object the more damage it takes. I also feel that holding a person with Move steps on Bind too much, so that becomes an issue as well.

I mean no offense mentioning this, but it seems as if Force slam/hurling people is something that was overlooked and the "quick fix" was to say, "Use Move to Force slam/Move works on people".

*IMO, the aforementioned adventure where a character is levitated with Move contradicts the core power.

They use the word "object like Wizard of the Coast use the word "monster" in DnD to describe everyone to save space in the book. Plus last time I check, people have a mass, a size and a density like non-living object so if a corps is not an object, what are we? Spirits?

People aren't generally referred to as "objects" and in the context of a game's rules definitions need to be clear. Add in that nearly every explanation of Move discusses inanimate objects, it becomes even murkier.

Does it truly matter or ruin the game? No, not at all. However, since it's come up time and again it wouldn't hurt for there to be a posted errata. Not to "Gotcha'!" the developers (they really have done an incredible job with the game) but it would be a place to find or be pointed to without debate. A great way to put this to bed would be to add something to an existing rank of Control

Also, not to be argumentative, but Force slamming a Sil 4 object shouldn't cause more damage to said object, IMO. In fact, one might argue it does less. If you can muster the will to slam a Sil 4 object with 40 points of damage, why can't you do this to a stormtrooper? As narrative as the system is, that pushes past my personal limit of credibility. Sadly, I really haven't come up with a good way to account for damage this way.

That would be because objects is more inclusive. If they said just people. Then people would say you can move non-sentient things. By every interpretation I have ever heard people are objects. It is like squares and rectangles. Not every rectangle is a square. But every square is a rectangle. Not every object is a person. but every person is an object.