You're kind of flipping the argument in a direction I don't think I ever suggested (a bit strawman-y, to be Whedonesque).
It's not a strawman. Posters have been arguing throughout this thread that MANY martial powers don't work unless explained as mystical or inherently magical. When I hit this line above with examples related to heroic acts from fiction the response from the people raising those issues was "well sure, not THOSE powers, but others". He's just asking - what others? It's an honest question.
and ALWAYS draws in all foes regardless of their own statistics, abilities, and desires.
This is a disconnect of design intentions. With 3e, the designers saw the need to tackle every corner case and created a lot of subsystems and a lot more corner cases each time. They learned from this with 4e and decided to leave corner cases to be handled by the groups that had a problem with them. It's a corner case, deal with it how you see fit. Disallow the power, modify it so it does basically the same effect, without the forced move (make it so the fighter feigns an injury so his opponents drop their guard just a bit, then he explodes in a burst of speed himself, and shifts himself, attacking everyone in a burst 3).
The silliness ensues when people like exploderwizard claim that the 4e powers fail because you can find a corner case or two to throw at 1 or 2 martial powers that create a situation that is a bit difficult to explain. When it has already been explained as design intent by the designers that they aren't going to fret over the odd corner case, its hard to rationally call that "fail".
The shared narrative control works both ways. If one of the surrounding NPCs woud not possibly ever charge the fighter, the DM can simply say this guy doesn't do it. The no armed, naked guy with no means to attack doesn't bull rush the fighter along with everyone else. But is it really inconceivable that the wizard does? The wizard who sees the fighter going down, who sees his minions rushing in for the kill, he doesn't charge in preparing to blast the fighter with one of his close burst powers (something he might well do on his own on his turn, after having allowed or positioned himself within 15' of the deadly fighter anyway)? Powers he took specifically for melee damage? He couldn't conceivably be tricked or taunted by the wily fighter? "I'll show you why I am the master of Thunder!"
It wouldn't be outside the spirit of the rules to allow someone for whom it would clearly be a huge mistake to charge the fighter to get a save either, like when a forced move effect is going to throw you off a cliff.
The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target
Why don't you work a bit harder to build up your Super-Corner? He could also have a gimped leg and walk with a cane, so that movement is not easy for him, and he also has an extreme phobia for violations of personal space, and is enveloped by a magical force shield that makes him impervious to all damage but stops working if he is within 5' of anyone...
EDIT: ALSO, as a former player and someone who LOVES Earthdawn, my memory was sparked by an earlier post. I had no problem with powers of the warrior class in that game being odd and hard to explain in mundane (=non-magical) terms, because that's the world/campaign that's being run....EVERYTHING is magical. If I wanted that in D&D, I would (like many here) not have this issue with 4th edition.
So you open your post accusing someone who asks for examples of the magical nature of these martial exploits by claiming that's a strawman argument that you aren't actually making, then close by saying that if the martial powers were just magical like in Earthdawn you wouldn't have any problem with it... Interesting.
