It's simpler than that. The knockback sequence asks if the next square is blocking or occupied by blocking. The special terrain counts as blocking for occupancy. So, when the sequence makes an occupancy check, it finds blocking terrain, which stops knockback.

Which is a restatement of what Lantern said, so I'm not sure why we're still confusing the issue.

"Counts as blocking terrain for occupancy purposes"
There are two ways to interpret 'occupancy' here.

1. "Counts as blocking terrain for effects that are looking for blocking terrain to occupy the given square." This is how you are currently interpreting it. This would mean other effects looking for blocking terrain in a square would have their condition met. This goes against what is described on CRS page 15. Additionally, using this interpretation instead of the other would mean you could 'place' a character in one of these squares.

2. "Counts as blocking terrain when determining if characters, markers, or objects may occupy this square." This would mean, when you ask 'can I put this object there', or 'can my character end movement there', the answer would be no, as it would violate Golden Rule 2

If the knockback sequence actually said 'if the next square is blocking or occupied by blocking, there would be a stronger argument that it includes this type of special terrain by implication. But the sequence just says 'Blocking terrain occupies the next square'. This is a different use of the word occupy than how the special terrain is using that word.

Checking for what terrain type occupies a square is different than checking what terrain type is in the square. A square where the Invisible Jet is located is special terrain. That square is occupied by blocking terrain. If you are looking for blocking terrain, you will not find it in Invisible Jet squares. If you are looking for squares occupied by blocking terrain, you will find them in Invisible Jet squares. This does not violate the rules on CRS page 15. This is not mutually exclusive of your interpretation #2.

That is all correct, and that's why you can't place figures in the Invisible Jet special terrain. When a character attempts to occupy the special terrain then the terrain type of the square is checked. Since we are checking "for occupancy purposes" the special terrain is considered blocking.

The special terrain is blocking both when you ask what terrain occupies that square, and when you attempt to place something in the special terrain. Both interpretations 1 and 2 are really two sides of the "occupancy purposes" coin. They don't conflict.

If blocking terrain occupies the next square, the next square is occupied by Blocking terrain. This objection is nonsensical.

I'm not sure how to be more clear than the direct quote from the CRS. Special Terrain of this mixed type is not "Blocking Terrain".

The sequence is asking if "Blocking terrain occupies the next square". It is an effect looking for Blocking Terrain. That effect is neither trying to move through or occupy that square, it is merely checking for what type of terrain that square is. Up to this point, the knocked back character is not trying to occupy this square, this is a special corner case because the sequence is pre-determining the type of terrain in the next square.

Again, I'm not arguing against the idea of 'intent ruling' on this, but I don't think it helps to try to rationalize it by reinterpreting the rules, because those rationalizations then affect other effects.

Find me in the rules where "occupancy reasons" only applies to a character trying to occupy that square.

Because a strict reading of "occupancy reasons" would mean "if a character is trying to occupy that square" or "does blocking terrain occupy that square".

Especially since we know (from the knock back sequence) blocking terrain CAN occupy a square.

And when you can't, go ask on the WIN. Because there is no reason to keep arguing in circles about this.

By definition, Blocking Terrain always occupies a square. Firstly, an 'unoccupied' square must not contain a character, or 'blocking terrain'. Inversely, if the square is/contains blocking, it is occupied. Secondly, if printed blocking terrain didn't 'occupy' the square, then knockback sequence 3 would not trigger and deal 1 damage, since it 'only' looks for blocking terrain that 'occupies' the next square.

To interpret 'occupancy reasons' on special terrain to mean it counts for effects looking for Blocking Terrain, would specifically violate their given example stating that 'it won't count for these effects'.

"Place adjacent to blocking terrain" contains no occupancy check. Which means that occupancy checks do not violate their example. You are incorrect and failed to find anything in the rules that defines occupancy the way you (and surfer) are reading it.

I expect you have submitted this to the WIN now and will not post any more in this thread (except to quote the answered question on the WIN).

Source: http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....f01de9d278227a

"If a character is knocked back into special terrain, do you treat it as if being knocked back into blocking terrain?"

WK: Yes.

A one word reply from WK is problematic. The Boxing Ring is Special Terrain without this trait that is clear for movement and occupancy. A one word answer like this implies that it applies to ALL Special Terrain, not just the ones that count as Blocking for movement and occupancy.

I sent in something mentioning as much to them but expect it to be rejected on the basis of my not posting the full rules for the Boxing Ring. Being I am at work, does anyone want to take this up?

The original question asked about the special terrain that acts as hindering for movement and blocking for occupancy so I read it as applicable to that type of special terrain only.

This thread makes me so angry I could punch someone into a wall... unless the wall is special? Because in anger I pulled my punch to avoid the wall... maybe?

"C'mon, man!"

Considering the question specifically cites Tony Stark's Car, which has the same hindering/blocking rule as every special terrain besides the Boxing Ring, I don't know why we'd need clarification. There's nothing about the boxing ring that makes is Blocking, so it would not fall under the same ruling at all.

True, but as worded, that question and that answer, isolated from context, paint the wrong picture completely.

That is my concern. I know darn well this doesn't impact the Boxing Ring, but they needed to be precise in their wording, and they weren't.

It's not even up for question, unless people are reading part of the post and not all of it.

That's like saying the answer for Dr. Strange isn't enough because someone might completely avoid the context of the question and only give you that portion of the answer, which would also be known as cheating.

"His? Who is the "his" referenced here? Other characters have d20 powers, we specifically need the 'him' in question to be referenced here."