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.

Because, whether or not they moved out of engaged range would determine whether or not he could have been using the Bind movement upgrade combined with it s Mastery upgrade to immobilize and stagger them instead of using Move's hurl upgrade which only causes wound damage, and would not have caused nearly enough wound damage to incapacitate them given their wound threshold and soak value.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Yes, he can.

No. He can't. His arms are not that long, and neither is his lightaber. He certainly can't hit any vital organs, and certainly not both of them either. The most he can even touch is the bottoms of their feet. That is not engaged. That is short range. They are out of reach. Therefore, they are not in engaged range to him.

And that matters for?

Yoda walked in, mooks were in some way incapacitated. Short of seeing the roll or ensuring it wasn't Harm does it matter how? Couldn't it also be Bind without the control upgrade?

3 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

And that matters for?

Yoda walked in, mooks were in some way incapacitated. Short of seeing the roll or ensuring it wasn't Harm does it matter how?

In a sense, yes, because of the Conflict (or lack thereof) that could be involved.

Sorry my edit was too late. Is there a reason it can't be Bind without the Control upgrade? Or Unleash?

Just now, Rossbert said:

Sorry my edit was too late. Is there a reason it can't be Bind without the Control upgrade? Or Unleash?

Without the movement Control upgrade, they wouldn't have been moving (the "Force Push"), which is what knocked them into the wall and moved them away from Yoda (however small of a distance it was). They would simply be frozen in place (Like Rey when Kylo Ren used Bind's base power on her on Takodona). And Unleash doesn't work that way, and is not a power Yoda would ever even remotely consider using.

5 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

Sorry my edit was too late. Is there a reason it can't be Bind without the Control upgrade? Or Unleash?

Don't go down this rabbit hole, man. He has his own view of the game that is both weirdly strict and weirdly loose - depending on what he's trying to prove - and you won't convince him otherwise.

I see no reason it can't make small adjustments that don't impact range band. Small narrative flair is a big point.

More importantly, what conflict is at stake either way? It is still an attack with either power.

If I understand engaged, being that it's not an exact measurement but a narrative description of close enough for combat then doesn't it work much like a knife or brawl fight?

An attack is not simply one punch or a single blaster shot or single thrusting stab. An attack is a narrative description of what could be a few blows thrown or a quick flurry of shots.

In a knife fight each opponent is engaged, however both might be taking turns making thrusts and taking a step back to avoid. Even while engaged, they wouldn't always be close enough to actually be stabbed, however this is handled narratively rather then mechanically.

So while Yoda might only be able to cut a couple toe's if he swung his saber while standing completely still in the exact position he landed, in fact the step or two it would take to really gut the guy with a saber is well within the engaged range, it would be the same change in distance a lunge or dodge would carry our knife fighters in the above example.

While it's technically a little outside of the weapon's range, it's close enough to fit narratively with engaged.

IT's close enough to physically interact, and the fact that Yoda would need to move in order to do so is what puts him out of engaged range. IT's not so much a mater of how far he has to move, but rather that he does need to do so.

My argument would be that Yoda would take conflict, not simply from a single attack but from the feelings of anger and frustration the whole ordeal would provoke. Yoda being a grand Master wouldn't take much, as his feelings were kept in control, however isolated examples of where excessive force was used to quickly and without much thought are the signs of this inner conflict.

Yoda knows what's at stake and even he would've been tempted to annihilate the mooks and take down the emperor as quickly as possible without worrying about the limitations or complications morality imposes.

You move while engaged.

The amount you move is conciderd mechanically negligible... So its handled narratively.

The amount of movement in a knife fight would likely exceed the amount Yoda would need to move so narratively it's still all engaged. If I could take a quick double step and punch you it's engaged, Yoda would simply make a lunge and he'd be within striking distance... It's narratively close enough to be engaged.

7 minutes ago, TheShard said:

If I understand engaged, being that it's not an exact measurement but a narrative description of close enough for combat then doesn't it work much like a knife or brawl fight?

An attack is not simply one punch or a single blaster shot or single thrusting stab. An attack is a narrative description of what could be a few blows thrown or a quick flurry of shots.

In a knife fight each opponent is engaged, however both might be taking turns making thrusts and taking a step back to avoid. Even while engaged, they wouldn't always be close enough to actually be stabbed, however this is handled narratively rather then mechanically.

So while Yoda might only be able to cut a couple toe's if he swung his saber while standing completely still in the exact position he landed, in fact the step or two it would take to really gut the guy with a saber is well within the engaged range, it would be the same change in distance a lunge or dodge would carry our knife fighters in the above example.

While it's technically a little outside of the weapon's range, it's close enough to fit narratively with engaged.

I back your interpretation here. Using another famous duel as an example, the Cliffs of Insanity duel in The Princess Bride. They spend basically the whole scene (with a few exceptions) at engaged range, even though they move a great deal in actual distance. The first several blows, they do have to move to strike at each other (thrusts and lunges are all about this), but does it count as a maneuver to take that step to thrust at your foe, or for him to thrust at you? Of course not. The only ones that really count as a Move in my mind are moving toward or away from the edge of the cliffs or the flipping stunts.

Great minds think alike apparently that's the exact duel I was thinking about.

4 minutes ago, TheShard said:

My argument would be that Yoda would take conflict, not simply from a single attack but from the feelings of anger and frustration the whole ordeal would provoke. Yoda being a grand Master wouldn't take much, as his feelings were kept in control, however isolated examples of where excessive force was used to quickly and without much thought are the signs of this inner conflict.

Yoda knows what's at stake and even he would've been tempted to annihilate the mooks and take down the emperor as quickly as possible without worrying about the limitations or complications morality imposes.

I don't see Yoda as angry. He's determined and resolute. He knows what needs to be done and sets out to do it. Palpatine had to be stopped.

Just now, TheShard said:

You move while engaged.

The amount you move is conciderd mechanically negligible... So its handled narratively.

The amount of movement in a knife fight would likely exceed the amount Yoda would need to move so narratively it's still all engaged. If I could take a quick double step and punch you it's engaged, Yoda would simply make a lunge and he'd be within striking distance... It's narratively close enough to be engaged.

The difference is that for Yoda to do so requires much more movement than if a human was doing so because of his much shorter reach. For instance, what might be engaged for someone wielding an 8' polearm, would not be for someone wielding a dagger. This is because the polearm has a much longer reach. Thus, Engaged is relative.

Except that is not how this game works, Engaged covers both of you. Reach isn't a thing, if you can hit them they can hit you.

Either way, Move or Bind, he still took an aggressive action toward them.

Absolutely. Because Yoda is quick as hell, his engaged is probably a little bit more liberal then something similar on stature.

It's not necessarily just anger, it's conflict. Going in with overwhelming force wins, period. If you want to stop Palpatine it's the surest way to victory. However you'll do things that might not be necessary and could have been avoided... Figuring out just what is necessary will cause conflict because by being cautious and concerned about the results of your actions you can also risk not going far enough and letting Palpatine succeed.

Just now, Rossbert said:

Except that is not how this game works, Engaged covers both of you. Reach isn't a thing, if you can hit them they can hit you.

Either way, Move or Bind, he still took an aggressive action toward them.

Actually, that is not always the case. Just because you can hit someone, does not always mean that they can retaliate. Not only that, but even going with that, the guards were not in a position where they could physically interact with Yoda either. They couldn't reach out and touch him, not even with their toes. They would have to move at least a few feet in order to do so.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, that is not always the case. Just because you can hit someone, does not always mean that they can retaliate. Not only that, but even going with that, the guards were not in a position where they could physically interact with Yoda either. They couldn't reach out and touch him, not even with their toes. They would have to move at least a few feet in order to do so.

Not the important part of the post. It doesn't matter which it was, either was equally conflicting.

1 minute ago, TheShard said:

Absolutely. Because Yoda is quick as hell, his engaged is probably a little bit more liberal then something similar on stature.

It's not necessarily just anger, it's conflict. Going in with overwhelming force wins, period. If you want to stop Palpatine it's the surest way to victory. However you'll do things that might not be necessary and could have between avoided... Figure out just what is necessary will cause conflict because by being cautious and concerned about the results of your actions can also risk not going far enough and letting Palpatine succeed.

Except, that there was no way to avoid it. Everything he did was necessary. He didn't go "overboard". If there is one thing about Yoda, is his restraint. This guy never goes "overboard". He does exactly what needs to. No more no less.

1 minute ago, Rossbert said:

Not the important part of the post. It doesn't matter which it was, either was equally conflicting.

Not true. One can cause physical injury, the other simply restrains and subdues, it does not inflict harm.

Yes but to be that concerned about not going overboard is itself a risk you might make a mistake. Now, Yoda doesn't make many mistake but it's still conflict.

A few feet is certainly within engaged range.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not true. One can cause physical injury, the other simply restrains and subdues, it does not inflict harm.

Assault is defined as any unauthorized physical contact. While I would not argue that the Force would go that far, Bind (without any inflicting upgrades) is pretty close to the equivalent of forcing someone into a straitjacket, or using a taser, or one of those nifty hardening goo guns, or any number of less-lethal devices. While obviously less so than shooting someone, I don't know anyone who would argue inflicting such on someone isn't an aggressive, hostile act regardless of the necessity or justification.

Being hostile is often necessary but it's also something that works against the lightside of the force which seeks tranquility and peace. Being hostile in the name of good is still a conflict even If absolutely necessary and justified as far as the force is considered.

This isn't an argument of morality in general and in real life, it's an argument about the morality in star wars in regards to the force and the specific way ffg handles it mechanically with conflict. Which is stylized and idealistic by design.