5 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

namely that it could only be used on things actively attacking you (false) and that it was inherently limited to silhouette 1 (also false).

Pull the quotes, DM. I'm happy to show that you have no clue what you're talking about. Again.

In the first case, I was only expounding on the challenges that dissecting the language of RAW can bring up (like how Bind references "enemies", explicitly). If you bothered to read anything, the rules or the post, you'd see there's context to things that are important to informing understanding.

And on the second one, really can't fathom where you got that nugget, cuz indeed, I've stated multiple times in multiple ways that the Silhouette of Bind is unlimited.

I'm guessing, again, it's this problem you seem to have with context.

Further more, Dev says explicitly in that quote; blaster shots are a no go, as are doors (an example of machinery that is moving), i.e. the "what not"encompassing everything else Buxton asked about (context), sooo ... yea, you're just wrong at every turn.

But please. Do submit that to them as a question.

10 hours ago, emsquared said:

Pull the quotes, DM. I'm happy to show that you have no clue what you're talking about. Again.

In the first case, I was only expounding on the challenges that dissecting the language of RAW can bring up (like how Bind references "enemies", explicitly). If you bothered to read anything, the rules or the post, you'd see there's context to things that are important to informing understanding.

And on the second one, really can't fathom where you got that nugget, cuz indeed, I've stated multiple times in multiple ways that the Silhouette of Bind is unlimited.

I'm guessing, again, it's this problem you seem to have with context.

Further more, Dev says explicitly in that quote; blaster shots are a no go, as are doors (an example of machinery that is moving), i.e. the "what not"encompassing everything else Buxton asked about (context), sooo ... yea, you're just wrong at every turn.

But please. Do submit that to them as a question.

He did. And it doesnt say what you claim. and i Bind mentions targets. not enemies.

I see that you too have been driven insane @Daeglan by being proven wrong in the midst of such an ardent and incorrect defense of your interpretation of RAW.

You "Liked" my comment in this very thread, in which I used "enemies" as incontrovertible proof that the Power can target droids, at the least, in that context. I realize it's uncomfortable for you to then be so handily beaten in debate by the person who's comments you just liked. But that's what's happened here. And it's driven you insane. I am sorry.

And here's my quote from the other thread that I believe @Donovan Morningfire is referencing:

" Maybe it's just me, but as a GM I would never allow one to classify an inanimate object as an enemy. It's an obstacle at best. An enemy is defined by hostile motivations or antagonism. Inanimate objects of course have no such will or sentience.

I realize that parsing language in this way could bring up issues regarding whom the Power may be used on (ie not on an Ally, and what about neutral parties?), but since this is a topic that is defined by the parsing of language from the start, I think that's what we have to do. "

The context of my statement, is clearly that the importance of "enemy" in the Power description is to connotate sentience or will, as opposed to objects which have no will. I clearly never used the words "actively attacking", not once. So DM is a bald-faced liar, 1. And I also never once asserted it was a necessary condition to target, just that parsing language in the way the OP wanted held dangers. So DM is clearly completely 100% wrong, again, 2.

Tell you both what, let's make this interesting, hm? If you both truly believe you have the right of it, and that Bind is written and intended to be able to target non-sentient, "moving machinery", maybe even vehicles, you think?

I'll put the question up to devs, and whoever is wrong has to delete their account.

I'm willing to put my interpretation up against those terms.

Are you?

10 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I see that you too have been driven insane @Daeglan by being proven wrong in the midst of such an ardent and incorrect defense of your interpretation of RAW.

You "Liked" my comment in this very thread, in which I used "enemies" as incontrovertible proof that the Power can target droids, at the least, in that context. I realize it's uncomfortable for you to then be so handily beaten in debate by the person who's comments you just liked. But that's what's happened here. And it's driven you insane. I am sorry.

And here's my quote from the other thread that I believe @Donovan Morningfire is referencing:

" Maybe it's just me, but as a GM I would never allow one to classify an inanimate object as an enemy. It's an obstacle at best. An enemy is defined by hostile motivations or antagonism. Inanimate objects of course have no such will or sentience.

I realize that parsing language in this way could bring up issues regarding whom the Power may be used on (ie not on an Ally, and what about neutral parties?), but since this is a topic that is defined by the parsing of language from the start, I think that's what we have to do. "

The context of my statement, is clearly that the importance of "enemy" in the Power description is to connotate sentience or will, as opposed to objects which have no will. I clearly never used the words "actively attacking", not once. So DM is a bald-faced liar, 1. And I also never once asserted it was a necessary condition to target, just that parsing language in the way the OP wanted held dangers. So DM is clearly completely 100% wrong, again, 2.

Tell you both what, let's make this interesting, hm? If you both truly believe you have the right of it, and that Bind is written and intended to be able to target non-sentient, "moving machinery", maybe even vehicles, you think?

I'll put the question up to devs, and whoever is wrong has to delete their account.

I'm willing to put my interpretation up against those terms.

Are you?

please explain to me why it couldnt in universe.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

please explain to me why it couldnt in universe.

I see you have fled very quickly from my challenge. I accept your surrender.

No. I am asking you to explain in universe what is the factor that differentiates to the force a droid from a vehicle or a piece of machinery? Because to me enemy means something that works against your desires. It does not need to have its own will or anything. We see lots of things in the movies get crushed. For example what power did Vader use to crush the equipment around him? was the equipment around him his enemy?

35 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I see that you too have been driven insane @Daeglan by being proven wrong in the midst of such an ardent and incorrect defense of your interpretation of RAW.

You "Liked" my comment in this very thread, in which I used "enemies" as incontrovertible proof that the Power can target droids, at the least, in that context. I realize it's uncomfortable for you to then be so handily beaten in debate by the person who's comments you just liked. But that's what's happened here. And it's driven you insane. I am sorry.

And here's my quote from the other thread that I believe @Donovan Morningfire is referencing:

" Maybe it's just me, but as a GM I would never allow one to classify an inanimate object as an enemy. It's an obstacle at best. An enemy is defined by hostile motivations or antagonism. Inanimate objects of course have no such will or sentience.

I realize that parsing language in this way could bring up issues regarding whom the Power may be used on (ie not on an Ally, and what about neutral parties?), but since this is a topic that is defined by the parsing of language from the start, I think that's what we have to do. "

The context of my statement, is clearly that the importance of "enemy" in the Power description is to connotate sentience or will, as opposed to objects which have no will. I clearly never used the words "actively attacking", not once. So DM is a bald-faced liar, 1. And I also never once asserted it was a necessary condition to target, just that parsing language in the way the OP wanted held dangers. So DM is clearly completely 100% wrong, again, 2.

Tell you both what, let's make this interesting, hm? If you both truly believe you have the right of it, and that Bind is written and intended to be able to target non-sentient, "moving machinery", maybe even vehicles, you think?

I'll put the question up to devs, and whoever is wrong has to delete their account.

I'm willing to put my interpretation up against those terms.

Are you?

Look, I'll give you that there is a string of conjecture that might lean slightly in your favor if you interpret things ridiculously literal. But it's still conjecture.

Even with the dev ruling, you have a bit further to go before it's "incontrovertible proof". It's currently a lighter shade of gray, but currently you're smugly claiming it's bright white. If nothing else, and that makes you come off as a bit of a... Richard. And I'm assuming, perhaps generously, you're not trying to do so.

Again, even if you are 100% right, the fact that you yourself wouldn't run it that rigidly, tells me that you agree that such a rigid interpretation is, in fact, kind of stupid. As few other things in the game seems to be enforced this rigidly, this might not be intended to either.

So, please tone down the smug. We can probably all agree on you being mostly right. Insisting that you're completely and incontrovertibly right achieves nothing but make you look bad. Yes, and that's in comparison to your two detractors, who are not currently acting as beacons of amiability.

I think we can all benefit from taking a step back (myself included) and approach each other's interpretations with a slightly more open mind.

I was happy to let sleeping dogs lie. When the citation was revealed, I pulled out the relavent language, stated the relavent result. No victory lap, no gloat. No rubbing it in. Just wanted to make sure the result was apparent, so I pulled it out. Cuz you can be darn sure the "other side" would have if they'd been right. And I was good with that. I knew I didn't need to say anything more.

But people wanted to keep talking, and not just talking, but talking to and about me, well, I like talking too.

I know that's not a great look, but I was happy to let things be, but it was other ppl that wouldn't let me be. If you're gonna tell me it's my obligation to walk away, I'm sorry but I have to rejct that notion. I could. That would look better, but I'm not too concerned about looks, when someone's gonna come at me.

I'm still happy to let things be. But if people want to keep talking, I'll be happy to oblige that too.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Again, even if you are 100% right, the fact that you yourself wouldn't run it that rigidly, tells me that you agree that such a rigid interpretation is, in fact, kind of stupid. As few other things in the game seems to be enforced this rigidly, this might not be intended to either.

Not quite. I think it's necessary. Unfortunate, but necessary. Cuz ppl more often then not want to know what the "actual" rule is.

Also, might I say, I was really surprised to see essentially your aforementioned "droid-run ship"/"super intelligent computer" come up explicitly in the dev-talk, I take it such a thing must be in some book?

As to this...

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

It's currently a lighter shade of gray...

Doors (moving machinery?), blaster bolts, and "the general environment" were all given a hard-no/"cannot" by the dev. Not "maybe". Not "depends". No. I don't think I've ever seen such a definitive ruling on something that, I agree, has such narrative grays.

Anyone can reconcile that as me being any degree of correct they want, but it's functionally 100% because the only thing he gave hard yeses to were N/PC-type entities - within the game: sentients/"organics"/whatever, droids, animals. That's it. The thought and intent behind that can't be any more clear there.

That was my line.

34 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Doors (moving machinery?), blaster bolts, and "the general environment" were all given a hard-no/"cannot" by the dev. Not "maybe". Not "depends". No. I don't think I've ever seen such a definitive ruling on something that, I agree, has such narrative grays.

Anyone can reconcile that as me being any degree of correct they want, but it's functionally 100% because the only thing he gave hard yeses to were N/PC-type entities - within the game: sentients/"organics"/whatever, droids, animals. That's it. The thought and intent behind that can't be any more clear there.

That was my line.

Except that is not what the rules say or the devs said.

Quote

5. Bind cannot be used to target equipment, gear, items, and whatnot. It can target droids or animals. Though there is no silhouette limit, the GM can rule that some things are too big (or not really appropriate) to be targets of Bind, including droid-run spaceships, space slugs, rancors, and other such items.

What they said is you cant target gear and equipment. IE you cant target blasters, hand held items. no where does it rule out machinery. and I would posit that the examples we see of things being crushed in the movies was done with bind.
What they said is that a GM CAN rule some things are off limits because they are too big. Or not really appropriate.

I think this... discussion has pretty much run its course. You are looking at the exact same quote and arguing it different ways. I can see both sides of the argument, and both have their points and flaws. You're all pretty set, and none of you are going to want to concede any ground, because you feel that those on the other side are jerks. Does this really need to continue? I think we've got enough information that anyone going through this thread for help will be able to come to their own conclusions.

it appears anything that can use an independent maneuver is a valid target. with common sense size restrictions.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Except that is not what the rules say or the devs said.

While your argument of: "Just ignore the facts, words, and context of the conversation.", is quite convincing. The other fact, that when given the chance to prove you believe your own words, you instead fled from them like a house on fire, and tried to pivot the conversation off-topic, indicates that you're wrong and you know it.

5 hours ago, emsquared said:

While your argument of: "Just ignore the facts, words, and context of the conversation.", is quite convincing. The other fact, that when given the chance to prove you believe your own words, you instead fled from them like a house on fire, and tried to pivot the conversation off-topic, indicates that you're wrong and you know it.

Im still waiting for you to show where they said doors were a no go. I saw nothing of the sort. What i saw was gear and items is a no go. And very large things a gm can rule no.

10 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Im still waiting for you to show where they said doors were a no go. I saw nothing of the sort. What i saw was gear and items is a no go. And very large things a gm can rule no.

I'm happy to expose intellectual dishonesty wherever I can, and here is yours:

Buxton clearly asks about a wide range of inanimate targets in his question, including: " non-sentient targets such as equipment, ships, Blaster shots, doors and the general environment"

And of course Dev response includes equipment and "what not", and goes on to confirm droids and animals.

So you must either believe that the Dev chose to not only avoid answering the vast majority of the subject of the question, but furthermore to not acknowledge it was asked about in any way.

Or.

You must believe that all that stuff is included under the Dev's "what not".

Occam's Razor says it's the latter.

But to "believe" it's the former, you must willfully ignore not only the facts, words, and context of the question, but the purpose of those questions and role of the Dev in that forum.

That's fine if you want to do that.

But that's why I offered you a way to prove you believe what you're saying.

You clearly do not.

2 hours ago, emsquared said:

I'm happy to expose intellectual dishonesty wherever I can, and here is yours:

Buxton clearly asks about a wide range of inanimate targets in his question, including: " non-sentient targets such as equipment, ships, Blaster shots, doors and the general environment"

And of course Dev response includes equipment and "what not", and goes on to confirm droids and animals.

So you must either believe that the Dev chose to not only avoid answering the vast majority of the subject of the question, but furthermore to not acknowledge it was asked about in any way.

Or.

You must believe that all that stuff is included under the Dev's "what not".

Occam's Razor says it's the latter.

But to "believe" it's the former, you must willfully ignore not only the facts, words, and context of the question, but the purpose of those questions and role of the Dev in that forum.

That's fine if you want to do that.

But that's why I offered you a way to prove you believe what you're saying.

You clearly do not.

The devs seem to have a habit of not being that specific. The respose i see leave these decisions up to the gm. They give guidelines. And the guidelines they gave left room for doors etc. But seem to rule out things that could be on a person. So you cant crush a persons blaster.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

Using a gif does not make you correct. It just makes you arrogant.

"This bickering is pointless!"
-Grand Moff Tarkin

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The devs seem to have a habit of not being that specific. The respose i see leave these decisions up to the gm. They give guidelines. And the guidelines they gave left room for doors etc. But seem to rule out things that could be on a person. So you cant crush a persons blaster.

The devs have specifically stated that no, you cannot use Bind on inanimate objects , including doors. It works on characters , including droids , but not on objects.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The devs have specifically stated that no, you cannot use Bind on inanimate objects , including doors. It works on characters , including droids , but not on objects.

Well since people are not all interpreting it your way that would mean that no they did not clearly state that. Just because you interoret their statement that way does not mean you are correct. And i see plenty of instances in the movies that clearly look like something you would do using bind on an inanimate object.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Well since people are not all interpreting it your way that would mean that no they did not clearly state that. Just because you interoret their statement that way does not mean you are correct. And i see plenty of instances in the movies that clearly look like something you would do using bind on an inanimate object.

You and Donovan, no one else. And I too have asked the Devs about this issue in the past (I asked about the blaster bolt shot fromTFA). You cannot use Bind on inanimate objects. It works on characters, be they organic or droid, but not inanimate objects.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You and Donovan, no one else. And I too have asked the Devs about this issue in the past (I asked about the blaster bolt shot fromTFA). You cannot use Bind on inanimate objects. It works on characters, be they organic or droid, but not inanimate objects.

Well except others arent as convinced as you. The thing is what differentiates an animate object frkm an inanimate one? And i dont mean in the rules but i. The universe. What would one power work and another not work?

What power would you ise to freeze a blaster bolt?

What power would you use to crush everything around Vader in episode 3?

What power would you use to crush the base of the pillar in episode 2?

I would say yo uh could use move or bind. But bind seems to fit crushing things better.

Also making rhings bold makes you less convincing not more.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Using a gif does not make you correct. It just makes you arrogant.

That's right. What makes me correct is using facts, context, reason, and logic to form a complete argument that the opposition is unable to rebut in any way, with anything at all, besides "nuh uh", which they will only back with pixels.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

That's right. What makes me correct is using facts, context, reason, and logic to form a complete argument that the opposition is unable to rebut in any way, with anything at all, besides "nuh uh", which they will only back with pixels.

Except you dont have facts. You have can opinion on interpreting a statement that is far far more flexible than you think. And a! Still waiting for you to answer my questions. So do so. How would you accomplish those events from the movies using the game. The game is supposed to simulate the movies.

14 hours ago, Daeglan said:

What power would you use to freeze a blaster bolt?

What power would you use to crush everything around Vader in episode 3?

What power would you use to crush the base of the pillar in episode 2?

I would say yo uh could use move or bind. But bind seems to fit crushing things better.

Since neither emsqured or Tramp Graphics is apparently mentally incapable of addressing these, I'll take a stab at them...

Freezing a blaster bolt? Since it's a moving thing, and the dev answer implies that you can't target inanimate objects (or at least not personal items), I'd go with Bind. It's the closest thing we've got without building a custom talent or Force power effect. I doubt the devs had this sort of thing in mind when writing Bind, but then ever Star Wars film has introduced some new usage of the Force that was otherwise considered "impossible," and I find myself curious to see what new Force trick/ability we're going to see in TRoS.

Vader's tantrum is probably an effect of his custom Force Choke special ability, which just lets him spend Force points to inflict damage. He's not tossing them about, so Move is out since that relies on literally moving the affected target from one point to another, and Harm's definitely out since that only affects living targets. I suppose Unleash could work, with Vader's theme of the power being telekintic brute force as opposed to hurling energy about, and he's easily got the Force Rating and Discipline skill to inflict notable damage on everything immediately around him (short range). Bind is also possible, since Vader's mostly damaging droids (who aren't inanimate objects) and some of the surrounding medical equipment, but that could just be narrative fluff to display the extent of his largely uncontrolled tantrum, or GM Lucas was willing to let Anakin/Vader's player affect the scenery when using Bind due to him rolling so many dark side pips on the power check. So you've got your choice of Bind, Unleash, or Vader's custom ability, any of which could work for that scene.

Crushing a pillar base? I'd probably lean towards that being Move, with the notion that the "crushing" part is just descriptive of the Force user's (Dooku I presume?) intent being to drop the pillar on someone rather than the desired goal being to crush the pillar base. Not unlike Vader's ripping machinery off the walls during the second stage of his duel with Luke in ESB, where the intent wasn't to damage the machinery but rather to hurl a bunch of things (generally Silhouette 0) at Luke to further wear the boy down.