Since they wanted me to review "Adjacency" I assume they mean that when you are adjacent it determines what is meant by "away from the character." Yet it isn't that easy, I don't think.123456
OABCDO
OOXXOO
OOXXOO
The X's show the four square of the multi-base attacker and ABCD are targeted characters. Os are empty squares that don't matter for now.
So in this example, as I think Sassamo is saying, A and D are obvious knockbacks. A goes to 1 and D goes to 6. But B is adjacent to two squares of the attacker. One would knock him back to 2 and one would knock him back to 3. Even if it isn't based on adjacency, but rather just on "away from the character," half of the character should knock B back to two and half should knock B back to 3. And what if I want to knock B back to 2 and C to 5? Can I do that to split them up?

My last point is that if I use Giant Reach, I am drawing a line of fire to every square, not just non adjacent ones, right? so if there is confusion for non adjacent giant reach, isn't it the same for adjacent with giant reach?

The first part illustrates my point very well, thanks. For the last point, yes, when using Giant Reach, you would be targeting all squares, but the rules specifically allow you to draw a line of fire to each target, independently from any chosen occupied square. So whether the target is adjacent or not doesn't matter. This is only an 'issue' for multi-base, multi-target attacks not using Giant Reach.

Sure.

I mean, I get the question I just don't think it's a hard one (as something similar can happen with a single base range attack, at least conceptually).

Look at it this way (and this is less formal, to try and give form to the idea): B can "simultaneously" be knocked away into 2 or 3. So active player chooses.

I get how it can matter strategically, but no one should be getting into a big argument over this.

Yeah, this is one of those things that seems kinda weird, but works out fine mechanically. It's easier to show it than explain it, but basically in these scenarios, you just have to walk through it step by step, clearly, knocking back one character at a time, obviously starting with the ones furthest away.

So, you can knock back A, B, C, and D in whatever order you want, and from whichever square of your character you want. Which is important to remember when dealing with characters bigger than 2x2, since you can create some interesting situations where you would be able to knock B back behind A, and then not be able to knock A directly back (for instance, if A is a good ranged attacker, and B is a good close combat attacker, its obviously better to keep one adjacent and knock one back).

This was what I was asking and the answers lined up with how I thought that it would work.

Knocking B into either 2 or 3 is still knocking them directly away from the figure. The 2X2 owner is the active player so they get to decide.

Seems straightforward to me.

I could knock "A" to 1 and "D" to 6 because that is my only option, but I have some options with the others and let's say that I knock "B" to 2 and "C" to 4.

That would isolate "C" in the event that they were maybe an enhancement figure, or maybe they were sharing a high defense with "B" and "D", or even flip that and "B" and "D" had high defenses and now "C" is more vulnerable to attack.

Whatever the reason, the point would remain; All figures were knocked directly away from the attacker and so it was legal.

They may not have all been knocked in the same direction, but that is nowhere in the rules.