Just checking to be I am sure I have this right in case it ever comes up. A character cannot move through an opposing character. But, since the square they are moving to is through an intersection with clear terrain on one side; mind you clear terrain with a character in it; they may move through the intersection.

Jeez and I thought we had this figured out already

So because the opposing character in this scenario occupies clear terrain I can move my character through it as long as I break away. Okay I got it. But what if the opposing character was occupying hindering terrain in this same situation? And can you freely move between two friendly characters in such a manner?

Questions just leading to more questions

You can move through, but it would be hindered movement.

Yet another example of a game mechanic which is hard to follow because it does not follow what would happen in the real world.

Fixed that for you.

OK, so here is the counter argument. Let's say there was a feat, or SP in the future that was worded thusly:

When the character is given a move action, it is not required to end its movement when it becomes adjacent to an opposing character.

So, said character is faced with a 'wall' of opposing characters, like so:

C = character with SP or feat
O= opposing characters in clear terrain
X = clear terrain
B = blocking terrain
T = target square


XXCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
BOOBB
BXXBB
BXTBB
BXXBB
BXXBB
BXXBB
BXXBB
BXXBB

C has a movement of 8 with the . Can C get to T? No. Why? Because OO block the movement. He cannot move past them. The squares themselves are not blocking terrain, but the movement is blocked due to the rule of occupancy. I'm not seeing how an opposing character get's around that, even on a diagonal? You cannot move through the square occupied by the opposing character, and you cannot move out into the (for lack of a better term) 'open air' space over the lower elevation.

As I said before, the character blocks movement.
This is NOT the same as a square containing a character being considered to be blocking terrain.

Blocking terrain is a specifically defined game element. A square containing a character may function similarly to blocking terrain, but that doesn't make it blocking terrain. (See my Ulik example above. Penetrating damage acts like it ignores the damage reducers, but it doesn't actually ignore it, so Ulik's power does nothing to it.)

I understand that. The Rule of Occupancy prevents the opposing character form move into or through the square occupied by the character though. Despite the type of terrain that the square is, the character itself prevents the movement into or through that square. I just don't see how we are getting around that. And if we are, then how does LoF on the diagonal between 2 characters not work?

LINE OF FIRE ACROSS
INTERSECTION POINTS
Whenever a character’s line of fire crosses exactly
through an intersection point, treat the point as the less
restrictive of the two squares that touch that point but
are not otherwise in the line of fire.

No mention of characters, only squares. If both squares are clear terrain, then the LoF should be clear. If they are hindering, then LoF would be hindered.

Because LOF intersection rules do not specify that you only consider the effects of terrain. So anything that might interfere with LOF (including characters) must be considered.

Meanwhile, for movement, we've got:

MOVEMENT THROUGH
INTERSECTION POINTS
Whenever a character would move diagonally through an intersection point between four squares on a map, treat the point as the less restrictive terrain of the two squares that touch that point not along the path of movement. A character moving through a hindered intersection point stops movement in the square immediately following the point along its path.


Characters are not terrain. So you don't count characters when talking about movement through intersections.

And, yes, this was done on purpose so that you couldn't "wall in" an opponent simply by putting your characters (C) in a diamond around his/her character like so:

. C .
COC
. C .

Neither does line of fire through an intersection mention anything about characters. It only mentions squares: treat the point as the less restrictive of the two squares that touch that point but are not otherwise in the line of fire. No mention of characters.

Again, I understand that characters are not terrain. That still does not mean that you can move into/through squares occupied by opposing characters unless you have a power/ability that allows you to do so.

Breakaway

...........Only one successful break away roll is
required to move away from all adjacent
opposing characters or other game effects
that may require break away from that square.
Once a character successfully breaks away, it
can move through squares adjacent to every
opposing character or game effect from which
it broke away;

A breakaway roll does not let you move through the square occupied by the opposing character, nor does it allow you to ignore opposing characters for movement purposes. Which, according to this ruling is exactly what you are doing. Using Harpuas diagram again:

E E E E
E O X .
E A . .
E . . .

A moving to X has one path of movement. 'Open air', or the clear terrain square occupied by the opposing character. The terrain is clear, and I'm not disputing that, but that doesn't change the movement being blocked due to the rule of occupancy. Now, If that's the way it's been ruled, I'm fine with that, but then like I said LoF should also be clear in a case like this:

E E E E
E O X E
E E O E
A E E E

From A to X the LoF crosses through the intersection. If O and O are in squares of clear terrain, I'm not seeing how it's a blocked LoF any more than it would be (by the current ruling) blocked for movement, since characters are neither squares nor blocking terrain?

But anyway, I'll just accept the ruling and move on. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme.

Thanks to Harpua and normalview for trying to clarify it for me.

And characters occupy squares. Terrain exists in squares. Objects are placed in squares.

If it is in a square, it can impact LOF on a diagonal. That's why LOF specifies squares instead of listing every last little thing that might possibly be in a square. Who knows when a new game effect may come along that impacts LOF, after all?


And then, as illustrated, the intersection rules for movement goes out of their way to specify terrain, and terrain only.

Nobody said you could. However, the intersection rules for movement are quite clear: terrain, and terrain only, is what matters. Not characters.

No, it isn't what we are doing. No character is moving through an opposing character.

Yes, lets do so.

And that is all that matters. The TERRAIN is clear. Once more:

MOVEMENT THROUGH
INTERSECTION POINTS
Whenever a character would move diagonally through an intersection point between four squares on a map, treat the point as the less restrictive terrain of the two squares that touch that point not along the path of movement. A character moving through a hindered intersection point stops movement in the square immediately following the point along its path.



You're right; it doesn't change that movement through that square is prevented by the opposing character. Good thing, then, that is not what we're trying to do.

Because LOF doesn't single out terrain like movement does. Instead, it tells you to look at the square... warts and all. This includes characters in the square.

Any game that uses aspects of the real world in it, but has rules that are counter intuitive to the what you would see in the real world, is hard. It is only if you can complete ignore what you know about the real world that those rules are easy. I guess I could say rulings like this are hard for me; just like hiding behind a hidden character; because I have a 'hard' time abandoning what I know about the laws of nature.

Um...comic books aren't the real world.

They're not?!?!

I don't believe you. I'll prove you wrong. I'm going to go jump off a building and Superman is going to save me. Just watch. I'll be laughing at you in the news tomorrow.

Ha, knew you would say that. But even in comics you do not see Silver Surfer hiding behind Howard the Duck who is hiding on a desk; one of my favorite Defenders' tricks of the game. Of course a half dressed talking duck could distract someone from the nearly nude silver guy.