Ending Movement

I feel like this was discussed before, but I can't find it, so sorry for any redundancy.  

The rules state that targets may move through one another's hexes, but may not end their movement in an occupied hex.  For the purposes of this rule, what exactly constitutes ending movement?  If I move-sprint, does the hex I reach at the end of my move action need to be unoccupied, or do I simply need to reach an unoccupied hex before I do anything other than move?  What about powers that move and then do something (swift bot, flying smash), or powers that change your location in nonstandard ways (rocket jump, displacing teleporter)?  Could such actions be initiated from an occupied hex if they immediately followed a move/sprint and ended in an unoccupied hex?

It's a good question.  I'd always assumed that each time you finish any movement-type action (sprint, move, flying smash, etc.) you had to be in an unoccupied hex, even if the next thing you did was another movement-type action.  But I've never seen it stated explicitly.

EDIT:  Foote seems pretty certain.  He must have a link or something to back up his one-word assertion, I'm sure... ;)

yes

It's weird because I feel like I half-remember someone saying the opposite in some other thread, but I can't remember where, and searching turned up nothing, so I asked (again?).

It's pretty much right there in the rulebook. You can't end any kind of movement in an occupied Hex, regardless of it's the general move action or anyother way you can move your character.

No link, but 2 solid says of tournament experience that can pretty much confirm this.

That matches my understanding as well.  I was just poking you for the not-particularly-helpful one-word post. :p

alright, thanks.  That's how I would have interpreted it if not for my weird phantom memory.  Still confused as to where that came from. It's one of those weird things that seems to get somehow both more vague and more vivid the more I think about it.  I suppose that should tip me off that I'm making it up.  Anyway, thanks.

I can confirm that Foote is correct in his interpretation of the rules.