I could have sworn that bind was for people, move for objects. That devs suggested the possibility of GMs letting move be used on minions.

I'm looking for the dev source for both of these.

3 minutes ago, TheShard said:

b   ind  was for people, move for objects 

This has never been the case, at least in this edition of the Star Wars RPG. From literally the beginning the devs have advocated using Move to directly move people.

Here are some dev answers, posted on this forum. First post.

. Or you can listen to the earlier episodes of the Order 66 podcast to hear their voices

19 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

This has never been the case, at least in this edition of the Star Wars RPG. From literally the beginning the devs have advocated using Move to directly move people.

Unlimited Power, page 89, disagrees with you, where it says: "Normally, Move can only target objects, but the GM might decide that Minions are easily dispatched..."

It seems the devs are inconsistent, and leave it up to the GM to decide how and when Move can be used. If you allow it, it's probably reasonable to make it an opposed check.

46 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Or   you can listen to the earlier episodes of the Order 66 podcast to hear their voices

Maybe that's what I'm thinking of!

Probably up to the individual table/GM to figure out how they want to play it. There's adequate evidence to go either way.

For me, I'd let you use Move to throw somebody. There's not much difference between throwing a speeder at somebody, vs throwing somebody at the speeder. If you want to hold them for longer then a round it's gotta be Bind.

That’s very strange that one of the newest books invents a “move for objects” concept when for years there have been tons of threads/dev q’s/podcast discussions debating the best ways to use move on people. In what I’ve been able to pay attention to I don’t remember it ever being suggested move shouldn’t/can’t be used on characters. I even think Sam gave his usual, “I don’t see a problem with it if the GM allows it” answer when asked about using move to let characters fly.

13 hours ago, Hinklemar said:

That’s very strange that one of the newest books invents a “move for objects” concept when for years there have been tons of threads/dev q’s/podcast discussions debating the best ways to use move on people. In what I’ve been able to pay attention to I don’t remember it ever being suggested move shouldn’t/can’t be used on characters. I even think Sam gave his usual, “I don’t see a problem with it if the GM allows it” answer when asked about using move to let characters fly.

**** when asked directly Sam Stewart said both Bind and move can be used to simulate force slam

Editing is a lot art.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Editing is a lot  art.

Brilliant!

Heres an idea: Its your game, have your group make a decision and stick to it and who gives a hoot what the devs say.

Youve probably played more than they have, and are probably more familiar with the rules anyway.

1 hour ago, korjik said:

Heres an idea: Its your game, have your group make a decision and stick to it and who gives a hoot what the devs say.

Youve probably played more than they have, and are probably more familiar with the rules anyway.

No game system survives the first 5 minutes contact with the average nerd.....

GM: "No, you can't use the Move power to affect a person!"

Me: "I use the Move power to move that mandalorian's suit of armor into the wall behind him."

GM: "..."

3 hours ago, Xcapobl said:

GM: "No, you can't use the Move power to affect a person!"

Me: "I use the Move power to move that mandalorian's suit of armor into the wall behind him."

GM: "..."

The old 'Anti-Material Rifle' trick

Using the "fine manipulation" part during a previous incarnation of Star Wars RPG I then utilized Move to pick up a droideka, and roll it over backwards, to keep it in the air upside down, with its back towards the party. Effectively, this took out the main threat to the group. No more need to do anything but concentrate on keeping it there while the rest shot the droideka to pieces.

Point is, when you find a way, you find a way. Player creativity always has been, is and always will be surprising to the detriment and fun of GMs all over the world.

Of course, a GM can play around with some definitions. In my example I chose to use Move to affect an entire suit of armour instead of the person in it. I know of GMs that would force me to spend about fifteen advantages just to move all the separate parts of such armour; the helmet, the belt, the holster, the boots, and so on and so forth. Other GMs would allow this, assuming my character would Force Move the belt, taking the person wearing that along with it. They would then rule that the total amount moved would be equivalent to a medium-sized person (as opposed to a tiny belt alone), making any checks suffer the difficulty of moving an entire person. I would have no quarrel with that ruling. But still, this makes the discussion moot; Move is used to move something that takes the person inside it with it, effectively moving that person just as well.

23 minutes ago, korjik said:

The old 'Anti-Material Rifle' trick

Please elaborate? I don't know the term or specifics, though from the looks of the smiley, I might LOL as well.

It's based on the old military urban myth that certain high caliber rounds couldn't be used on human targets only equipment, so you'd say you were aiming for their belt buckle....it's all BS of course, but it persists...that's the logic being applied to doing the end run on the Move rule of only affecting objects.

Cleared that up. thanks.

But urban myth or BS, there is probably no point arguing the possibility to affect something, so that it affects another thing you aren't supposed to affect. The only real question that remains, is how to rule such a situation in the game. If you don't want Move to affect living people ("just use the Bind Force power for that!"), some player will, like me, mention moving the intended target's belt or armor or indeed any object securely tightened onto the intended target, for what its worth, dragging the intended target along with it as well.

That's where the freedom of this narrative system shows its beautiful head, at least in my opinion. The belt is suddenly no longer a silhouette 0 / 1 encumbrance (at most) item, but due to everything that is forced to move with it it turns into a full silhouette 1 / X encumbrance, as if it were the intended target. When moving the belt, disadvantages or despair could indicate the belt snapped and no longer moves the intended target along with it. The game itself offers all those nice, cinematic options.