Roderic is absolutely correct that WK's answer, while sufficient, is not precise. The question that was asked was phrased in a way that addressed "Special Terrain" in a general sense, as did WK's answer. The issue is, while that answer obviously doesn't apply to all Special Terrain, just types that are considered Blocking, that distinction was never made in the question, nor in the answer.

WK's gives no explanation as to their reasoning, and this isn't an answer to a question about one specific figure. A literal reading of this ruling absolutely would mean this also applies to the Boxing Ring. Obviously, that is not the intent. Thus, we are left to extrapolate the meaning of a one word answer, rather than being given a concrete, black and white ruling.

And if you think there aren't people who will try to pull this crap in a rules argument, you are terribly naive.

I mean, just look back at the earlier part of this thread...

Whether that is directed at me, or those associated with the OP, doesn't really matter. This was a good and necessary discussion. This was an undefined rules interaction. WizKids is is no way shy of rejecting questions, sometimes citing rules that still leave the issue somewhat obscure. Clearly, even they have considered this situation undefined enough to provide some clarity, otherwise they would have just cited the rules for knockback or some other related section of the rulebook and moved on.

While I also agree that a more descriptive answer, or question, would have been preferred, and that a strict literal rendering of just the given question and answer would indicate Special Terrain such as the Boxing Ring would also have the blocking effect(though in the case of the Boxing Ring itself, and not some potential other clear special terrain, it actually makes some real world sense), I myself wouldn't go to the extent to try to argue that understanding. I see 'rulings' to be a type of 'case law'. They just supply a precedent, and are generally not to be treated with literal interpretation. Though the question itself, not the topic of the thread, are indicative of a specific type of special terrain, 'exhibit a', the quoted effect given as 'part' of the question does provide more definition to the question, and demonstrates what WizKids is actually ruling about.

Was it really though?

I want to make sure I am not a bad judge and missing something because this seemed cut and dry. The part you guys keep quoting in the CRS about special terrain doesn't apply here.

Also, using the logic you used in this thread all knockback is optional and would never be able to take place because of the misapplication of the rule of occupancy.

Yeah, no. They clarify things that are spelled out in the rules and on the PAC all the time. This isn't a very good argument either

Yes, it definitely was. While the intent seemed fairly obvious, the rules themselves actually do not address this directly at all. As I've said before, this is one of dozens of things that are not properly covered by the rules from a technical standpoint.

Your earlier post in this thread seemed to be pretty declarative and definitive that special terrain that is blocking for occupancy would stop knockback (which I agree with.) What part exactly is not covered technically here?

The check for Knockback is poorly worded. As written, it doesn't care if something is considered Blocking for occupancy, it only cares if that square is Blocking. The rules for Special Terrain make it very clear that it only considered those terrain types when there are specific conditions, ie; occupancy or drawing lines of fire.

I gave a definitive answer because I know how things like this are going to go. My answer is the intuitive one, and the rules definitely lean towards that being the intent. But from a technical standpoint, this was in a very weird grey area that had several possible outcomes, most of which were fairly nonsensical. I could illustrate some, if you want. But really, Sassamo was not terribly off base with his earlier assertions.

There are lots of things in this game that don't work quite right from a technical standpoint, even under the new rules. Fortunately, WK's has made things fairly clear as far as their intent to push more towards intuitive rulings and trying to eliminate weird, corner case, overly technical interactions.

I was going to thank you for the explanation and your time until I got to the end...

I am not trying to argue about it dude. Was just asking for exactly what you were talking about. Take yourself less seriously please and buzz off with this terrible attitude you constantly have in these threads. Pretty shameful for a Purple when all I am trying to do is understand.

I will note in the future to not engage any of you lest you think I am questioning your almighty wisdom though. Actually, might as well just make this my last post on this forum. Happy clixing!

So does this mean the boxing ring deals knockback damage?

It does not and should not, but the lack of precision in their reply to say that "Only Special Terrain features with this Special Terrain trait deal knockback damage due to being treated as blocking for occupancy and movement" leaves much to be desired.

To put a bit of a finer point on it: no. But Wizkids' current reply leaves room for those that favor logical fallacies to try and break through.

Hopefully it will get stealth edited to be more iron clad.

...

Hope springs eternal...