4 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

There are few groups that don't house rule a little.

I was just pointing out that he clearly aims for a harder simulationist approach to combat with a bold, more four-color approach to morality.

This will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because various people are playing with different approaches and themes.

The arguments have been made on both sides, with the starting assumptions differing.

If Tramp were saying "well, this is my house rule for how I'm handling Situation X in the games I run," that'd be one thing, and he's certainly welcome to adopt whatever house rules he likes should he actually ever run this game.

Problem is that he's going around saying "My interpretation on this is absolutely 100% correct and anyone that says otherwise is dead wrong!" Frankly, I'm half-expecting him to start shouting "FAKE NEWS!" anytime someone brings up a reference that contradicts his stance on things.

It is possible he wasn't aware of the fact that range bands are universal. If it is explained that engaged is close enough to hit someone and you are used to turns being exactly one action in X amount of turns instead of 'a narrative exchange lasting from an instant to minutes' it isn't an unreasonable interpretation.

This can be a weird system to get used and there is a wide range of interpretation even in an extremely strict reading of the rules.

The Internet is an unkind place at times at when you feel defensive it can come off as harsher than intended.

I will always return to my other point that it really depends on which version of the Force you subscribe to. I will admit I do not agree with this system including light side as a thing or the legend of balance as presented in the book.

24 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

There are few groups that don't house rule a little.

Immaterial, we aren't discussing house rules. We are discussing the RAW.

24 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

I was just pointing out that he clearly aims for a harder simulationist approach to combat with a bold, more four-color approach to morality.

You give him too much credit here, as he has yet to even be so consistent as to be taking a simulationist approach. As has been pointed out by numerous people, his arguments contradict themselves and he often bends the rules to fit whatever he's saying at the moment.

10 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

It is possible he wasn't aware of the fact that range bands are universal. If it is explained that engaged is close enough to hit someone and you are used to turns being exactly one action in X amount of turns instead of 'a narrative exchange lasting from an instant to minutes' it isn't an unreasonable interpretation.

This isn't what is going on. He claims to understand the difference. I'm a bit unsure why you're making excuses for him. Moreso when you consider your excuses for him are easily contradicted by his own statements.

15 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

It is possible he wasn't aware of the fact that range bands are universal. If it is explained that engaged is close enough to hit someone and you are used to turns being exactly one action in X amount of turns instead of 'a narrative exchange lasting from an instant to minutes' it isn't an unreasonable interpretation.

This can be a weird system to get used and there is a wide range of interpretation even in an extremely strict reading of the rules.

The Internet is an unkind place at times at when you feel defensive it can come off as harsher than intended.

I will always return to my other point that it really depends on which version of the Force you subscribe to. I will admit I do not agree with this system including light side as a thing or the legend of balance as presented in the book.

I think we've all gone through the 'oh, I see the confusion, let me explain why you and everyone else are disagreeing so that we can have a nice, constructive conversation.'

At which point Tramp responds rudely, dismissively, and insultingly. I think we're all pretty much over it.

1 hour ago, Rossbert said:

In his defense, in a crunchier system, D&D for example he is right.

Actually D&D would require them to be moved more than 5 feet away. Even in D&D Yoda would be considered small size, which by the rules still means they must be further away then they actually landed. To argue he couldn't engage them would require Yoda to be tiny in size according to D&D.

6 hours ago, Deimos119 said:

At this point I wonder if Stan and Tramp are the same person on two different accounts.

You're not taking it well when people disagree with you, huh?

But sure, let's spin some conspiracy fantasy.

10 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Here's the gif again:

They don't change range bands from him. He walks into Engaged Range, they turn around and ready their weapons, not attacking but on guard. Then he attacks them, and they fall down in place, again without changing range bands. He could still hit them with his Lightsaber without having to spend a Maneuver to get into range, easily. Kael is right, you are not.

The irony is that you show how they clearly are not engaged anymore when they land, even if they would be conscious , they still would need to spend one, maybe even two maneuvers to attack yoda after their fall.

Just now, SEApocalypse said:

The irony is that you show how they clearly are not engaged anymore when they land, even if they would be conscious , they still would need to spend one, maybe even two maneuvers to attack yoda after their fall.

Is that a joke?

I mean, I already pointed out that one of them lands CLOSER to Yoda, and the other is maybe a foot farther away. If they got to their feet, they're be well within melee range still.

29 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Is that a joke?

I mean, I already pointed out that one of them lands CLOSER to Yoda, and the other is maybe a foot farther away. If they got to their feet, they're be well within melee range still.

Yeah and you don't get it what engage means. They are actually engage in hand to hand combat anymore, they are out of engage and that applies to Yoda as well, as having the toe tips of one in lightsaber range does not cut it. Yoda would need to maneuver and decide which guy he wants to attack with his lightsaber, if he would want to attack them. Sarlacc sweep against both at the same time is now out of question, while it was before absolutely an option.

Engage or not is not a question of distance.

Edit: Calling engage a measurement of commitment would describe it actually best I think.

Just now, SEApocalypse said:

Yeah and you don't get it what engage means. They are actually engage in hand to hand combat anymore, they are out of engage and that applies to Yoda as well, as having the toe tips of one in lightsaber range does not cut it.

Given that people stand on their feet, I'd say where their feet are matters quite a bit.

And as I've said previously, if ANY GM tried to tell me that I needed to burn a maneuver to hit someone that close to me, I'd laugh in their face along with the rest of the group. It's absurdity, pure and simple.

Just now, Benjan Meruna said:

Given that people stand on their feet, I'd say where their feet are matters quite a bit.

And as I've said previously, if ANY GM tried to tell me that I needed to burn a maneuver to hit someone that close to me, I'd laugh in their face along with the rest of the group. It's absurdity, pure and simple.

No combat experience I guess ;-)

You need to engage and commit to your target in that exact situation shown. If you just lash out that saber after the toes of that Royal guard he just moves them out of your range, which means you have afterwards to follow up with a step, change your posture into facing that royal guard and actually engage him with a follow up of steps and attacks and thus spend the maneuver to engage anyway. And at that point it becomes literally impossible to attack the other royal guard unless he engages you.

So feel free to laugh in my face, while I wonder what you thought that engage and disengage maneuvers meant. ;-)

This is not DnD, man. We don't do 5 foot steps. Even for tiny little Yoda those Royal Guards are pretty close, and for anyone man-sized? Easily still in engaged.

30 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

This is not DnD, man. We don't do 5 foot steps. Even for tiny little Yoda those Royal Guards are pretty close, and for anyone man-sized? Easily still in engaged.

Again, it is not about the number of footsteps, it about engaging in melee combat. It would be a maneuver even if you were back to back touching each other before. You keep repeating range, when it had been quote out of the rules, that engage is not about distance (alone). So, if you have anything else to say, I am all ear listening, but I doubt it ;-)

Lastly, on a sil 1 force user, bind would have moved them slightly more, as it moves the target from engage to short, right? At least that was the point someone was trying to make at which you replied that they are still engaged, which they most certainly are not. Yoda is still very open in posture and just had removed both out of engagement range.

Btw, this is StarWars RPG when even standing up or drawing a weapon is a maneuver unless you have talent, in many ways the rules are actually overly structured and formal as DnD. Hydrospanner of supreme craftsmanship with safety features included. Or in DnD terms a hydrospanner +1 . The game is a lot closer to DnD than either of us would like. edit: I mean we have a maneuver to aim before you shoot

Yeah. I keep seeing the game described as rules light and narrative here, but compared to something like Wushu or Monsterhearts it's super detailed.

11 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Yeah and you don't get it what engage means. They are actually engage in hand to hand combat anymore, they are out of engage and that applies to Yoda as well, as having the toe tips of one in lightsaber range does not cut it. Yoda would need to maneuver and decide which guy he wants to attack with his lightsaber, if he would want to attack them. Sarlacc sweep against both at the same time is now out of question, while it was before absolutely an option.

Engage or not is not a question of distance.

Edit: Calling engage a measurement of commitment would describe it actually best I think.

EXACTLY!!!!

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

EXACTLY!!!!

Nope.

23 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Nope.

Wrong. SAEpocolypse nailed it exactly as the book states. Engaged is not an exact distance. It is strictly the distance needed to physically engage in hand to hand combat. It is not a set distance, but simply a matter of can you reach your target.

11 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

This is not DnD, man. We don't do 5 foot steps. Even for tiny little Yoda those Royal Guards are pretty close, and for anyone man-sized? Easily still in engaged.

No, they weren't. Yoda would need to physically move closer to them to hit either of them. He doesn't have that long of a reach, not even with his lightsaber. What's he gonna do, poke them in the feet? The exact didtance is irrelevant, it's a matter of is he close enough where he could resonably strike them with his weapon. And the answer is a resounding NO. He is clearly not close enough to hit them with his weapon, not without getting closer. Therefore, he is not within Engaged range of either of them. He is at Short range.

No, Engaged is a range band - one of the five. A distance. It even says it can be thought of as a subcategory of short range. It is a distance. Wrong.

23 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

No, Engaged is a range band - one of the five. A distance. It even says it can be thought of as a subcategory of short range. It is a distance. Wrong.

To quote page 215 of F&D:

Quote

To reflect two or more targets who are grappling or otherwise engaged in hand-to-hand combat, there is a special range status called engaged.Two characters engaged with each other are in very close proximity. A Warrior needs to be engaged with a target to hit him with a lightsaber. When two or more characters are engaged with each other, it is called an engagement.

Engaged is also used to indicate that a person is close enough to an item to use it. An artisan needs to be engaged with a security terminal to attempt to hack it. A Starfighter Ace needs to be engaged with his starfighter to board it. A Pathfider needs to be engaged with a tree if he wants to hide behind it for cover whole tracking his target. The engaged status simply indicates that to things are close enough to each other to directly interact.

Consider engaged to be a subcategory of Short range. Obviously, someone can be slightly farther away if they are in short range, instead of engaged with someone else. However, the difference in distance is relatively minor. Thus, spending a maneuver to engage someone or something is as much a matter of moving into combat cautiously enough to avoid receiving a blow unnecessarily as it is moving a physical distance.

Simply put, Engaged range is basically close enough where you can physically interact with the target directly. It's basically touching distance. IF you can't reach out an make contact with your target, you are not "engaged" with him. Yoda is not close enough to interact with either guard physically. Therefore, he is not in engaged range to them.

It is still a range. A distance.

Also, he is absolutely in distance. He could easily take his lightsaber and hit the one who falls near him.

Sorry to do this, but there is now too much to easily search.

Why is the distance a random extra is from Yoda important to gaining conflict?

It sounds flippant, but I actually am lost as to the point being addressed now.

1 minute ago, Rossbert said:

Sorry to do this, but there is now too much to easily search.

Why is the distance a random extra is from Yoda important to gaining conflict?

It sounds flippant, but I actually am lost as to the point being addressed now.

It's not, but topics with Tramp eventually take wild turns and end up being about other arguments - usually after he's proven wrong and then he makes it about something else so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong.

3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

It is still a range. A distance.

Also, he is absolutely in distance. He could easily take his lightsaber and hit the one who falls near him.

No, he can't. They're out of his reach. Have you ever looked at the size of his lightsaber? The only thing he could even remotely reach is the bottoms of their feet. That is not being engaged with them.

Yes, he can.