I don't think there would be two separate knock backs. The way I see it, a power that specifies the knock back distance uses that distance. If the distance is unspecified, you use the damage dealt to determine the knock back distance.
In other words, if you roll a crit hit on a Quake and deal 3 damage to a target it will still only be knocked back 2 squares because that's the distance specified by Quake.

Not to be offensive, but this reads more like a personal opinion than a "final" ruling. There are great arguments made for having to deal knock back twice because of the way knock back and quake are worded in the 2013 rulebook, and yet your choosing to just ignore them. The way I see it, quake does not say that knock back is only dealt by quake and that it is 2 squares and locked, it merely states that "each hit character is knocked back 2 squares." That change in wording I believe may have been made to imply what it does now which is knock back a hit character 2 squares even if they reduce all damage to 0. That does not mean that there is no way to add additional knock back to a character, or to combo knock backs, or that you can only use quakes 2 squares of knock back.

Take for example Blaastar's ability "THE LIVING BOMB BURST: All damage dealt by Blastaar causes knock back." Say he hits with quake (let's say because of a hammer being dropped underneath him from the book of skulls) and deals damage. With your ruling quake would either negate Blaastar's ability or the active player would have to choose to use only 1 of the methods of gaining knock back like players have to choose only 1 defense reducer to use when there character gets hit?

The rulebook does not specify for knock back like it does for defense reducers that you can only use one reducer on a character (ie. either imperv or invuln but not both). In Blaastar's instance I believe you would either add the damage that made it through any reducers to the 2 knock back given by quake, or deal the damage and knock back for the attack hitting THEN the 2 knock back from quake and resolve the action. The latter is the more logical choice because of the wording of Quake and Blaastar's power, however it creates the problem of hitting a wall twice within one attack.

Honestly I have no final say in how this ruling should go, but as you can see I have put a lot of thought into it and feel like the ruling is a sham. I don't mean to come off as negative with this post and would like your honest critic of my argument against the final word. It's just I believe you skipped over other better arguments than mine in this thread for causing knock back twice or other things happening and came up with a final ruling that has no basis to it other than being nothing less than the easy way out for this debate.

I'm not offended at all since I had no intention to make a final/definitive ruling. This topic has been up for discussion by the rules team, and the above is what I took from the discussion.

Thanks for the update Quebbster, appreciate you letting us know this is being discussed.

Subscribing.

As for my thoughts, I see good srguments both ways, but am leaning toward two instances of knockback being cumulative.

For me its ultimately the new wording on Forceblast that's confusing the issue. It either has a redundant clarification on only generating knock back if no other effect does, or its there to specifically to prevent causing multiple knock backs when combined with Quake or similar effects. Either way, some clean up is needed.

I'm pretty sure that the wording on force blast is there to remove the option when the attack causes knock back through other means.

If the option would remain you could choose that an attack roll of doubles would not cause knock back.

I see your point but that's not the way I'd read it personally. I'm hoping this issue is clarified one way or the other and maybe some clarification text added to the PG and later to the rule book.

Bump and thanks for reviewing it in the cave guys.

It seems to me that there is a good argument for double knockback. The way that quake is worded breaks it into two different parts; first the damage is assessed, second all hit characters take knockback. When you roll doubles, knockback occurs as part of assessing damage. Taking those into account it seems like the following would occur; You roll doubles for Quake, damage is assessed which includes knockback for doubles, then knockback for all hit characters of Quake takes place. If it doesn't happen like that than you would ignoring the second step of the Quake power because it does not say "unless knockback has already occured".

Hey guys and gals. I was fooling around on Heroclix.com today and came across an article on knockback. This is copied from the Quake section:

So, barring critical hits, you can knock back characters either 1 or 2 squares with this power (depending on how much damage the characters actually took). No doubles are necessary… all you have to do is hit and damage your target(s) and they will be knocked back. This power is particularly awesome when used against groups of characters with little/no damage reduction (most any Minion fits that description). Note, that there are no special rules in place if you do happen to roll doubles when you attack with this power; you don’t get extra knock back for rolling doubles or anything like that.

I think that answers all of our questions. Link below.

Read more: http://heroclix.com/heroclix/school-...#ixzz2Xdv6LNIh

That article (March 28th) is prior to the new rules, though, which are the basis of the discussion. Knock Back was based on damage both normally and with Quake. So it actually doesn't help.

I, too, am on the side of double knock back. The rules state that normally KB is calculated per damage done, and quake just gives you 2 squares of KB. Seems to me that that would be separate from the damage and damage related KB because it specifies the knock back. The damage is locked, so the power would only need to state "Deals knock back" to effectively get the point across that the characters are pushed 2 squares.

Have we gotten a concrete answer yet?

Thanks

Nope, and wish we would. I am really interested.