Personally I increase their Silhouette by 1, so the 5 Stormtroopers become a Silhouette 2 object. In the above example the FU could not have thrown that group without an extra Force Point or previously having purchased another Strength Upgrade. Had they been able to then the minion group would suffer 23-5=18 damage, taking out 3 of them and injuring a 4th, I would also allow that Triumph to remove 1 more Minion if the Player so wished.

Do you apply soak of minions only once and not once per new minion taking damage?

Personally I increase their Silhouette by 1, so the 5 Stormtroopers become a Silhouette 2 object. In the above example the FU could not have thrown that group without an extra Force Point or previously having purchased another Strength Upgrade. Had they been able to then the minion group would suffer 23-5=18 damage, taking out 3 of them and injuring a 4th, I would also allow that Triumph to remove 1 more Minion if the Player so wished.

Do you apply soak of minions only once and not once per new minion taking damage?

Correct. That is the rules for Minions

I would call it using Advantages and Triumphs on a successful Move power check.

Sure, but that's not part of Move as written, that's purely GM discretion, so it's a bit iffy to argue that the rules were written with that in mind. It is in my rewrite though.

Well here is what Sam Stewart has to say on this particular issue:

The Move Force Power

Question asked by Josep Maria

There is any official response about " Force Push " power or it isn't created? It's a variant from Move?

Answered by Sam Stewart :

Force Push , Pull, and Move are all the same thing in our game. Anything you could do with Push , you should be able to do with Move.

Follow-up Question asked by Josep Maria

How do you handle the "Knockdown" effect that we can see sometimes on the movies? Its cinematic or I miss something?

Answered by Sam Stewart :

If it's an opposed check, it would be something you could use Advantage to activate. If it's just a Force power check, then it's probably cinematic (if you're targeting minions or no-name rivals, whether or not they're knocked down probably doesn't make a huge difference either way).

Even without a Critical Rating, a Triumph can still be spent to inflict a Critical Injury.

throw the silhouette 1 "object" at the "target" which in this case is the wall.

So if you want to throw a bunch of minions into a wall you have to designate a different wall as your target for each one and make autofire checks? What about pushing them to the ground? Do you target a different part of the ground with each one?

Well here is what Sam Stewart has to say on this particular issue:

The Move Force Power

Question asked by Josep Maria

There is any official response about "Force Push" power or it isn't created? It's a variant from Move?

Answered by Sam Stewart :

Force Push, Pull, and Move are all the same thing in our game. Anything you could do with Push, you should be able to do with Move.

Follow-up Question asked by Josep Maria

How do you handle the "Knockdown" effect that we can see sometimes on the movies? Its cinematic or I miss something?

Answered by Sam Stewart :

If it's an opposed check, it would be something you could use Advantage to activate. If it's just a Force power check, then it's probably cinematic (if you're targeting minions or no-name rivals, whether or not they're knocked down probably doesn't make a huge difference either way).

That's what Sam Steward said on the issue in summer of 2014, a year before Force and Destiny even released, when Move was one of only 5 released powers that were designed to be as broad as possible and usable by characters with a force rating of 2, which is why it's a broken mess now that we have a full lineup of more specific powers and characters with much higher force ratings.

They wouldn't have written Bind if they didn't feel like there were some important elements missing from Move.

They wouldn't have written Bind if they didn't feel like there were some important elements missing from Move.

A lot of times on this forum I've seen people discuss how broken it is when people use move to throw their enemies at other enemies, causing massive damage to all of them. I've read over the rules a couple times in order to try and figure out what the hell the writers were thinking. What I noticed is that if you take a very literal reading of the rules it seems that you aren't allowed to actually use Move to throw people at all.

So on the one hand, you know they wrote Bind because "... some important elements were missing from Move". But in your OP that started this whole thread you say "I've read over the rules a couple of times in order to try and figure out what the hell the writers were thinking."

Which is it? You know what the writers are thinking? Or you don't know what the writers are thinking?

What about a Bind example, I'll use the same setup as above.

There are a couple of possible ways that a Force User could Push a target against a wall and prevent them from acting any further.

1.

Spending 1 Force Point on the basic power and spending 4 more on upgrades such as Strength/Magnitude/Range and then 1 more on Control: Move. At least 1 point must be a Dark Side point and the target Stormtrooper will suffer 6 Wounds, rendering them unconscious.

2.

Spend 1 FP on Basic, 1 on Control: Move, and a third on Control: Strain. One of the FP must be a Dark Side Point so the Stormtrooper suffers 3 Wounds and is Immobilised for at least one of the troopers turns. Then when the Stormtrooper does take their Action they will suffer 3 Strain, falling unconscious.

3.

Make an opposed Discipline check combined with s Bind Power check. That's a PPPDDD check. Then they must succeed and roll at least 2 Light Side Force Point to activate the basic power, and the Control: Move upgrade. With the Mastery this will then Immobilise and Stagger the target until the END of the Force Users next turn. Without a Force Rating of 3 they can't commit to the a Duration upgrade to maintain it either.

So with 2 different powers there is at least 4 very different ways to do what you describe, which was the exact intention of the developers when they made the game.

Edit: and yes, the Move Force Power is the simplest and easiest option, perhaps I could try coming up with a ludicrously powerful example, but I'm not sure where to start to be honest.

So if you want to throw a bunch of minions into a wall you have to designate a different wall as your target for each one and make autofire checks? What about pushing them to the ground? Do you target a different part of the ground with each one?

Where things get complex is with Minions, and I'll happily admit that GM's need to make executive decisions there. A Minion Group is technically a single target, so you shouldn't need a Magnitude Upgrade to be able to affect them all, but 5 Minions is bigger than a Silhouette 1 Object.

You as GM get to decide whether that minion group is:

1. A single Silhouette 1 Object, thus taking bugger all damage.

2. A single Silhouette 2 Object, thus needing more Strength and a slightly higher difficulty but taking more damage.

3. Or are individual Silhouette 1 Objects, with an autofire difficulty increase, require 4 Magnitude Upgrades and a Strength (conceivably only 3 Force Points), and 8 Advantage. Each take individual damage as if they where not grouped, thus the number you knock out is determined by the amount of Advantage and Triumph you roll... you have to be lucky.

I like option 2 because it's the one I think Obi Wan could have done in TPM to knock out a bunch of battle droids. Option 1 is underpowered and option 3 is dam near impossible for a lot of PC's. I don't like PC's having to rely so heavily on luck for something we see so often in the movies.

Which is it? You know what the writers are thinking? Or you don't know what the writers are thinking?

Uhhh, "what were they thinking?" is a figure of speech. None of us know what they are actually thinking.

From personal experience though I'm pretty certain that after a couple years of the game being out they wish they could change some things that can't be touched until a whole new edition appears.

Physics and Star Wars do not like each other just Ask Neil Degrasse Tyson about ANH and he will tell you the only thing they got right is that in order for life to exist on Tatooine it would require that it's binary star system have its stars close together which it does.

Star Wars is Space Opera, not Science Fiction. Science and Physics really have no place in Space Opera, except as decorative elements on top of the story, and maybe pulling in the reins a bit on some of the more outlandish (and less believable) story concepts that some parties might be inclined to throw out there.

For a fictional story to be entertaining and enjoyable, it has to be sufficiently plausible to our real-world minds. Take things too far, and it goes beyond the realm of willing suspension of disbelief and takes you out of the story.

Science and Physics can be used to help set certain parameters for the story, so that it is more plausible, and therefore has a better chance of remaining within the realm of being entertaining and enjoyable.

Physics and Star Wars do not like each other just Ask Neil Degrasse Tyson about ANH and he will tell you the only thing they got right is that in order for life to exist on Tatooine it would require that it's binary star system have its stars close together which it does.

Star Wars is Space Opera, not Science Fiction. Science and Physics really have no place in Space Opera, except as decorative elements on top of the story, and maybe pulling in the reins a bit on some of the more outlandish (and less believable) story concepts that some parties might be inclined to throw out there.For a fictional story to be entertaining and enjoyable, it has to be sufficiently plausible to our real-world minds. Take things too far, and it goes beyond the realm of willing suspension of disbelief and takes you out of the story.Science and Physics can be used to help set certain parameters for the story, so that it is more plausible, and therefore has a better chance of remaining within the realm of being entertaining and enjoyable.

Example:

Star Wars has artificial gravity, that's outside our understanding of physics.

The way that artificial gravity affects the characters though is believable. Which also means when the grav systems fail its believable, creating a entertaining and engaging story.

Physics and Star Wars do not like each other just Ask Neil Degrasse Tyson about ANH and he will tell you the only thing they got right is that in order for life to exist on Tatooine it would require that it's binary star system have its stars close together which it does.

Star Wars is Space Opera, not Science Fiction. Science and Physics really have no place in Space Opera, except as decorative elements on top of the story, and maybe pulling in the reins a bit on some of the more outlandish (and less believable) story concepts that some parties might be inclined to throw out there.

For a fictional story to be entertaining and enjoyable, it has to be sufficiently plausible to our real-world minds. Take things too far, and it goes beyond the realm of willing suspension of disbelief and takes you out of the story.

Science and Physics can be used to help set certain parameters for the story, so that it is more plausible, and therefore has a better chance of remaining within the realm of being entertaining and enjoyable.

Implausibility is one of my major complaints with Starkiller Base. I could accept the weapon, but not that its effects were visible across the galaxy in real time.

Well the weapon wouldn't work the Death Star was plausible in my mind, Starkiller Base not so much. Put the mass and energy of a Star in a planet and you have a Star. TFA was a faithful return to OT format of Star Wars but if there was one thing I didn't like it was Starkiller Base, it just makes no sense in our universe or theirs.

I kept thinking that the Galaxy Gun made far more sense and was much more terrifying than Starkiller Base.

Yeaa, Starkiller Base was definitely kind of a mess. Why did it even need the ability to fire across the entire galaxy? Since it had to eat suns to reload it must have had a hyperdrive just like the Deathstar, and the ability to destroy any system it jumped into anyways.

And they're easier to control than Autofire Guy. With Autofire Guy, you need to take his gun away. Drop-People Guy's greatest enemy is ceilings.

Curse you, agoraphobia! Curse youuuuuuuuuuuuu!

And they're easier to control than Autofire Guy. With Autofire Guy, you need to take his gun away. Drop-People Guy's greatest enemy is ceilings.

Curse you, agoraphobia! Curse youuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Agoraphobia would be certainly a problem. But so would a 100 credit grav-chute. Curse you red bull! Curse you!

Now that I am mentioning it, I don't think that you would even cause inconvenience to anyone in our current group with this takic. Our pilot and astromech are flying most of the time anyway, either with vehicles, jump boots or jetpacks. The force wielder would not only be a tough nut to crack on the discipline roll, but counter with his own force move. And the beat rider? Tough luck, but Varactyl are gliders, this is a "thank you for the lift" in the worst case and a survival check to have the mount catch his owner mid-air at best.

Sure, that's just us. But look at the currently most famous star wars RPG group. The rebels crew: The jedi's are just fine, the astromech has an internalized jetpack, the demolitionist has a jetpack, hera seems to live in her cockpit usually and zeb ... well someone has to catch zeb "not on purpose".

And have I mentioned that anti-grav chutes are not really rare either, 450 credits is a cheap thing for such an convenient life saver

Implausibility is one of my major complaints with Starkiller Base. I could accept the weapon, but not that its effects were visible across the galaxy in real time.

I had lots of problems with Starkiller Base. That was one of the biggest.

TFA did make it difficult for me to sustain my willing suspension of disbelief. And that significantly decreased my enjoyment of the movie.

We have similar issues in our games, and we need to remain aware of this at all times.

In the book, and likely the original script since thats what A.D. Foster wrote the book from, Starkiller Base used Dark Energy (think dark matter) to power the weapon which, as far as these things go, made more sense than draining a star. The effect of the darkening of the planet was from the distortion built up from the massing of the Dark Energy being collected. My guess is that JJ thought draining the star looked cooler so he went with that.

I don't remember if they explained why they saw the shot but I don't think they do in the novel they hear about it through the regular interstellar communication network. Again JJ can't pass up an opportunity to throw in cool FX, so we are stuck with some seriously wonky physics...

Yeah, remove that one shot of a flame thrower reaching a couple of thousand light years across the sky and things get better.

Han manually dropping out of hyperspace into the Ilum atmosphere was actually my biggest gripe.

Yea, the hyperspace jump into the atmosphere kind of contradicts the lore on hyperspace travel, but OK, I can believe that there is just enough of a delay between hitting the mass shadow and being ejected from hyperspace that you could time it just right to end up in the atmosphere, but a split second off from that and you'd just be vaporized as your ship is dumped from hyperspace into solid matter. They did think the plan was crazy and foolhardy in the movie.

I personally think Starkiller base would have been much scarier if it were literally just a fortress world that can appear into a foreign star system, devour it's star and leave, leaving all the planets to fly off into dead space, facing a frozen death.

Not second, not millisecond. Lightspeed needs 1c minimum, which means that a 100km atmosphere becomes 1/3000s time frame to deactivate the hyperdrive. You furthermore have to deactivate the hyperspace safeties which are supposed to be hardcoded into the drive to prevent terrorist attacks with just jumping stuff into planets.

So we are talking here about 333 microseconds time frame at best. Doable for a computer, not achievable by humans. And that is assuming that we are going as slow as possible, with normal hyperspace speeds our time frame to react quickly becomes smaller than a planck time and make the idea completely impossible ;-)

Now for the breaking from coming at 1c out of hyperspace ... yeah. Squish falcon.

Not if you approach Tangetially to the atmosphere lining up to never hit the surface, at that point it's a matter of being incredibly lucky to stop at the right time.

Not if you approach Tangetially to the atmosphere lining up to never hit the surface, at that point it's a matter of being incredibly lucky to stop at the right time.

This requires basically the stars to align right ;-)

Hyperspace routes are a thing, you have not unlimited freedom in your incoming vector. But it for sure can give you a little more time, not much mind you, as you run on all sides soon into the shields or ground. That atmosphere is really a super thin layer on the planet.

And this fits not what we have seen on screen on top of that. ^^

Oh I know it doesn't fit with hyperspace travel it might however work with a warp drive ala Star Trek.