Wait... that's not what the PAC says? When I copied and pasted straight from it? Let me try again.

Now show me where it says they ignore characters for movement. Oh, right, It doesn't. It says they "can move through squares adjacent to opposing characters." Everyone understands what this means when applied to HSSers. Why then would the exact same wording be any different when applied to flyers?

Once a flyer is moving, it can move through squares adjacent to and occupied by opposing characters.

Because it isn't... and nobody ever said it was. Flyers still have to break away, but once they are moving, they don't have to stop.

Well... except for that part I keep quoting, which kind of says that.

Right... "through."

The exception to the movement rules is the whole sentence ("Flying characters may move through squares adjacent to and occupied by opposing characters.") not just the "and occupied part." Because the rule is that figures cannot move through spaces adjacent to opposing characters. The fact that you can do this after breaking away is itself an exception, as is the fact that flyers can do it.
It's pretty clear to me and to every other player I know. Just because you continue to misread the rules doesn't mean they were poorly written.

Yep, caught the Hypersonic part.
Missed it somehow in reading Leap/ Climb and Hypersonic.

That does indeed mess up the entire ruling I was trying to work with...It is disappointing that WizKids didn't alter their wording to make flyers more clear in their rules.

However, this does not change the fact that they should errata their rulings to make this more simple...as my rule break-down is still a logical interpretation of the rules as written...and I have argued this point (from both sides) too many times.

No it's not enough-but why is convincing me so important?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but convincing you is hardly something I would call important.

However, this is the rules forum. People come on here to ask questions and get correct rulings.

Posts like this are just going to confuse players who might not know any better:
Then, when you were corrected, you continued to argue the point.

I confessed in a different response that I did indeed miss the Hypersonic part...much to my frustration. I am humbled and ashamed of that mistake. However, your attitude of smug superiority is just as shameful. I was, with examples, trying to dissect the wording of a vague rule.

Well, round in dese here parts, guess'n we're all mighty stupid, because at my venue it is not as clear as you state. Needing to reference the specific wording of the PAC to make precedent shows a slight flaw in the rulings that would have been cleared up in one simple sentence.

They were, and are, poorly written. If they weren't, I wouldn't be able to pick at them at all, which is what I would prefer. I'll carry this RA's ruling...that should be in the FAQ...to my venue.

How could that be possible...with such clear and concise wording in the rulebook?

I am going to vacate this thread before a flame war ensues...however I always assume that a rules thread was were one went to discuss rules...or do we have a WIZKIDS sponsored Rules Arbitrator at our beck and call?

At our beck and call? Not necessarily. But there is such a person, and he responds to questions all the time on the WK forums. If you really need an official response, you'll need to head over there. Ask for nbperp... tell him, normalview sent you

thanks. Actually a good thing to know. And thanks for being quite civil in response.

I do realize I probably came across as hostile and superior-sounding in my first post, and for that I must apologize.

When I see a point being argued between two people about the rules like that and I happen to have the official ruling (as I did in my email... I always try to be 100% up on the rules for my venue), I will poke in and try to give as much proof as I can of why it is a certain way.

I never intend to come across as superior, hostile, or anything like that when I offer such an explanation. I'm just trying to explain why the incorrect answer is incorrect. My last sentence was perhaps a little too harsh, and again I apologize.

I suppose I could've been a little less smug, and I believe I was being so until you quoted my post and responded with "The rules quoted explain NOTHING about ignoring the rules that force a character to stop moving when they move into adjacency with a figure that they have not broken away from...it only allows them to also move over an opposing fig that they have broken away from."

So when faced with the internet equivalent of SHOUTING, I responded.

Perhaps "every other player I know" was a bit of an exageration. Thinking back, I have had to explain this to a number of players. I've just never had anyone try so hard to not believe me.
This I disagree with. The reason for citing the PAC was to show how the two bits are worded exactly the same, but one was being understood while the other was being misunderstood.
I think a lot of things are clearly worded and people still try to pick holes in them. So I don't think the ability to "rules-lawyer" (pardon the term) a passage necessarily makes it a poorly-worded passage.

I personally don't think the already bloated FAQ needs to be any thicker. I would, however, not object to a rewrite in the next rulebook. As you said, the simple addition of the words "without having to stop" would clear up any confusion.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I've always seen a rules thread as a place people go to get answers, not speculation or discussions of how things oughta be.