1 minute ago, Decorus said:

Please name one way to move that is not a move maneuver. Oh wait all the ways to move are move maneuvers. Your just plain wrong.

Please continue to prove yourself completely wrong.

I accept your surrender too.

How did I surrender you are obviously completely wrong.

Just now, Decorus said:

How did I surrender you are obviously completely wrong.

This is a rules discussion. I quote rules. You thrash and squirm.

What rules?

Still waiting for you to explain how a Move Maneuver is not a Move Maneuver.

4 minutes ago, Decorus said:

What rules?

Still waiting for you to explain how a Move Maneuver is not a Move Maneuver.

Is it a movement that follows the rules for a Move maneuver as listed on page 208 of FaDCR? If not (as with "force leap"), then while it may be movement and it may even take a maneuver to do, it is not the Move maneuver.

Except it is a Move Maneuver.

I get your problem you are confused by the fact that the rules as written aren't designed to take a move outside of your own turn.

Now you can't stand the fact that this works, because someone else wrote a talent that lets you take a move Maneuver as an out of turn incidental.

Force Leap is a Force power that is an Action, because its a Force Power. Force Leap is also a Move Maneuver and follows all the rules of both a Force Power and a Move Maneuver.

IF you go by the strict interpretation of 208 you can't use time to go ever, because a Move Maneuver is not an out of turn incidental.

I get that your strict adherence to the written word can't allow you to ever use a Move Maneuver as an out of turn incidental, because the rules as written prevent you from doing so.

I'm telling you you can so please explain how Force Leap is not a move maneuver.

4 minutes ago, Decorus said:

Except it is a Move Maneuver.

I get your problem you are confused by the fact that the rules as written aren't designed to take a move outside of your own turn.

Now you can't stand the fact that this works, because someone else wrote a talent that lets you take a move Maneuver as an out of turn incidental.

Force Leap is a Force power that is an Action, because its a Force Power. Force Leap is also a Move Maneuver and follows all the rules of both a Force Power and a Move Maneuver.

IF you go by the strict interpretation of 208 you can't use time to go ever, because a Move Maneuver is not an out of turn incidental.

I get that your strict adherence to the written word can't allow you to ever use a Move Maneuver as an out of turn incidental, because the rules as written prevent you from doing so.

I'm telling you you can so please explain how Force Leap is not a move maneuver.

Have you even read Time to Go? It specifies that the Move maneuver may be performed out of turn. It does not specify that you can use any effect that allows for movement (such as a Force power).

As for your last line, considering my above line renders the rest of your post meaningless, I will again direct you back to page 208 for the Move maneuver description.

Page 208 does not state you can do that.

You can't have it both ways.

Either 208 is correct or Time to go is correct.

If Time to go is correct then Force Leap is a Move Maneuver.

2 minutes ago, Decorus said:

Page 208 does not state you can do that.

You can't have it both ways.

Either 208 is correct or Time to go is correct.

If Time to go is correct then Force Leap is a Move Maneuver.

I've explained myself and the rules quite clearly.

You're a troll and I've reported you.

No you haven't.

Page 208 is obviously not a strict definition of how Move Maneuvers work, because as we all know there are rules that alter this.

Force Leap being a move maneuver is an equally valid interpretation of the rules.

Also accusing me of being a troll, because you don't like what I'm telling you is a losing proposition it has nothing to do with this.

The very fact that there is a discussion here makes it pretty clear that this is a bit of a grey area and, as such, would fall under the GM's judgement.

So, as a GM, would it make more sense to disallow to use Force Leap with Time To Go than allow it?

You could argue, since it's a force power use, it requires a moment of focus and concentration and should therefor be disallowed as an out-of-turn incidental. On the other hand, letting you use Force Leap as an maneuver implies you can do it as instinctual as running, which would very much be allowed.

True, using Force Leap as a maneuver isn't specifically called out as Move maneuver, but it is a maneuver that lets you move. Whether such distinctions should matter is a question of personal taste and common sense.

One could argue that it should be allowed because it doesn't break game balance, and a counter argument to that is that blasts can be used to easily catapult Jedi into close combat. Counter-counter arguments would in turn be that

a) the talent costs destiny points to use.

2) the talent only lets you move to escape the blast, meaning the GM should have some input on where the character can move.

Third: the talent only lets you "attempt" to move, and Force Leap still requires a Force Power Check, meaning it could fail, resulting in no movement.

You could say that this is sloppy writing on FFG's part, but having some (professional, even) experience in writing RPG rules, I have to say that sometimes vagueness is preferable. When I started out I was careful to write rules as specific as possible, more in line with tabletop miniature war games and more tightly regulated RPGs, like D&D. I quickly discovered that this at times became counterproductive as rules often became overly convoluted in trying to nail down every variable, including potential future ones, so your milage may vary if less "sloppy" writing would be better.

This is the classic RPG battle since the dawn of time: The Power Gamer vs The Rules Lawyer

The Rules Lawyer is technically correct, in this case The Power Gamer is making/asking for a reasonable tweak to the RAW that most GMs would probably grant.

Where "You are" is replaced with "I am."

10 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Where "You are" is replaced with "I am."

However this is overwhelmingly a Rules as Intended not Rules as Written system, and common sense dev interpretation that frequently contradicts ruleslawyer dissection of text is the order of things

11 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

This is the classic RPG battle since the dawn of time: The Power Gamer vs The Rules Lawyer

The Rules Lawyer is technically correct, in this case The Power Gamer is making/asking for a reasonable tweak to the RAW that most GMs would probably grant.

I think the evidence is too scant to call anyone technically correct.

It's also worth noting that if you need to qualify "correct" with anything... well then you're not completely correct.

7 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

However this is overwhelmingly a Rules as Intended not Rules as Written system, and common sense dev interpretation that frequently contradicts ruleslawyer dissection of text is the order of things

This has been stated by Jay Little and Sam Stewart on several occasions, and they'd know the system in terms of intent better than anyone on these forums. Jay Little himself has said that he prefers to give GMs the flexibility to run things as best suits their table as no RPG designer can create a game that satisfies every type of player.

Plus, the rule books themselves say that if a rule as precisely written isn't fun for the group, then either tweak the rules to make it fun for the group or just throw it out. But frequently the Rules Lawyer type of players and GMs don't remember that rule, and most of those are stuck in the D&D 3.X mindset of an iron-clad rule for everything and everything has an iron-clad rule with minimal wiggle room. If a group is comprised entirely of those folks who are in the Rules As Written mentality, then it's all good for them. Sadly, those type of folks can't seem to grok that other groups might not want to play strictly by RAW.

9 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I think the evidence is too scant to call anyone technically correct.

It's also worth noting that if you need to qualify "correct" with anything... well then you're not completely correct.

I qualified it as "technically" correct because by the text it's correct as far as I can see - so Happy Daze gets to crow that he's correct. You're making a case for why it may not be the intent or why devs *might* change it or clarify it. But as has been pointed out this doesn't really matter as GMs have all the room they need to make the decision for the game and the reasons why a GM would probably side with Elias Windrider have also been made clear.

I'm not even convinced that Happy Daze wouldn't allow this change to RAW at his own table - I doubt this is his general approach to running this game (strict adherence to RAW) especially given that he's not shy about voicing issues he has with the game rules.

1 hour ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I qualified it as "technically" correct because by the text it's correct as far as I can see - so Happy Daze gets to crow that he's correct. You're making a case for why it may not be the intent or why devs *might* change it or clarify it. But as has been pointed out this doesn't really matter as GMs have all the room they need to make the decision for the game and the reasons why a GM would probably side with Elias Windrider have also been made clear.

I'm not even convinced that Happy Daze wouldn't allow this change to RAW at his own table - I doubt this is his general approach to running this game (strict adherence to RAW) especially given that he's not shy about voicing issues he has with the game rules.

I have house ruled on things often enough, but only after a through examination and understanding of the text. In such cases, I don't bother to try and make appeals to authority (e.g., "that's what the developers do") or appeals to the masses (e.g., "that's what most tables do") but I make a decision for what works in my game for me and my players. Once again though, I only do that after understanding the RAW.

In my group the enhance force jump is considered a maneuver, even more technically a move maneuer in which you are only allowed a certain number per turn. Now if the GM wants to change the force jump and how it is looked as a maneuver its his game and he can if he wants. I wouldnt because then it will get out of control. The book says you can only do a maneuver 3 times specifically to move. 1 free, 1 at a cost of 2 strain, and using your attack as a maneuver. With a fully upgraded force jump you can get into extra long range in one turn or almost I do remember something about the farther the range bands the more maneuvers you have to do to get there. for instance to go from close range to meduim it requires two maneuvers which is one fully upgraded force leap. Dont remember what it is to go from medium range to long range and long range to extream range. (could be from medium to long range requires two cant remember.) If the GM though will let you move more than 3 times a turn force leap might just turn you into superman, but its his game.

Control: the player may preform the force leap action as a maneuver instead of an action. Pg 288 Maneuvers are activities that aren't complex enough to warrant a skill check but which still involve time and effort on the part of a character. Characters are allowed one maneuver during their turn, and certain circumstances may allow a second maneuver (see below). The following are EXAMPLES of maneuvers: (pg 205). Types of Maneuvers The following is a list of the maneuvers a character can perform during combat. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. The entire point of maneuvers is that they can cover any activity that is relatively easy to perform but still requires some amount of time and effort. While the maneuvers listed here are deliberately general to cover as many options as possible, if a player comes up with something he wants his character to do that is not covered by this list, he should not dismiss the idea out of hand. (pg 207) Move: One of the most important maneuvers a character can make is to move--- from one piece of cover to the next, to a wounded allies side, away from an assassin droid's integrated vibroblade, or out of range of an enemies blaster pistol. The game defines several different broad TYPES of movements. Pg.208.


As the book states Multiple times while talking about maneuvers the list is not comprehensive. It is not to be taken as the only thing you are allowed to do nor are they intended to limit your options. They are simply examples and suggested options for maneuvers. Under Move "change range increment" is one of the BROAD TYPES of movements allowed Force jump changes a characters range increment from an explosion and thus would fall under this Broad TYPE category. In addition, also on Page 208 is an excerpt about Flying, specifically creatures that fly as yet another example of how differing movement options actually can and DO exist. So RaW and RAI do seem to allow for Force Jump to be used as a move Maneuver from what I can tell simply because the rules as written specifically states the rules as intended are to be broad and vague and open to other options and not just the ones listed in the rules as written, thus allowing jump to work as a move maneuver by having the way you are using it fall under one of the TYPES of move maneuvers, in addition to specifying things are not exhaustive.

So with the mention of Careers and what not

What are some of the best career/specialization choices, for being optimized?

Thank you

4 hours ago, bblaney001 said:

So with the mention of Careers and what not

What are some of the best career/specialization choices, for being optimized?

Thank you

Optimized for what? With out a goal that question is unanswerable.

8 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Optimized for what? With out a goal that question is unanswerable.

Finally, someone who understands optimization, this not a concept I was able to get @Tramp Graphics to comprehend and I've spent multiple days with long emails to get that simple concept through to him.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

Finally, someone who understands optimization, this not a concept I was able to get @Tramp Graphics to comprehend and I've spent multiple days with long emails to get that simple concept through to him.

Having had coversations like that with him. I feel your pain.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Having had coversations like that with him. I feel your pain.

Tramp is an old friend I med circa 2004 at church when I was a doctoral student in the mechanical and aerospace engineering department at the university at buffalo. Elias Windrider the character was created for an RCR d20 game that he GM'd and I was the only player for.... that was a disaster because well tramp.