Yea I'm actually completely dumbfounded by where exactly you get to the point where you are saying the figure brought in gets to attack. I never thought it possible, but I am actually now dumber.

This seems to imply that you would actually move, not just stand there and change.

As well as this:

I don't see the confusion here. If he is given a move action, in order to "morph" he can't take pushing damage. So most of the time he can only do it when he has one action token, but there are some other ways around it. For example: Chief, Edward Nigma, or Moloch The Mystic would possibly allow him to be given that 2nd action token and not take any pushing damage, thus he could also Morph.

The confusion is this:

A) Give Beast Boy a move action that deals no pushing damage:
When Beast Boy has no tokens and is given a move action, after the move is complete you can Morph.

B) Give Beast Boy a move action that deals no pushing damage:
If you give Beast Boy a Move Action to Morph, he takes no pushing damage.

I lean towards B because A would have been written: "When Beast Boy has no action tokens, give him a Move Action. When the movement is complete, replace this figure with another figure..."

Since WK chose to not state that Beast Boy must be free of action tokens I don't think that matters. Now its true there are other figures that could keep Beast Boy from taking pushing damage after moving but it would seem needlessly complicated to write the rules for that possibility rather than keeping it simple.

Of course this could very well mean that was what they were thinking. After all, what do I know? I still think Archangel's Special Power ruling about additional breakaway is total BS.

If I give him a move action and he doesn't get breakaway, can I still morph? I'm thinking yes, I gave him the move action even if he didn't get to use it to run.

Doesn't a failed Breakaway roll end the action immediately? If so, I wonder if one could actually Morph Beast Boy in that instance..?

I think it's A. They don't say anything about having to morph INSTEAD of moving. It just says when the action is resolved. And move actions are resolved.....by moving.

That would be rad.

That's true. He used to say, "I never thought it possible, but it would appear that my intellectual capacity has diminished ever so slightly."

Yep. That's what I'm thinking. Or you could give him a movement of zero and do it anyway. That would be a really cool way to click onto a ridiculous CR click and not push for it.

This seems like a legitimate point of confusion and I've seen logical arguments for interpreting it either way. When I first read the power I assumed "B" was the case, but now I'm not sure.

I'd really like to see an official ruling.

I'd also like to see one regarding the failed break-away question. I like the idea of being able to change if you fail the roll and think the idea is kinda funny.

I'm not seeing that it makes sense to morph and then attack. Whether or not you take pushing damage, you're still getting a token.

I am going to go ahead and say that a failed breakaway should allow you to still Morph. Even if failing breakaway ends the action immediately, the wording of Morph states that you don't switch out the figure until after the action resolves anyway:

1) Attempt breakaway.
2) Fail breakaway.
3) You are forced to resolve the action immediately.
4) After the action is resolved you Morph.

That's ecaxtly how I'm interpreting the power as well.

The official write up does mention moving the swapping though.

It's poor wording like this that causes headaches. WK needs to hire either retired English professors or lawyers to proof read these special powers!

Honestly the way its word it can be interpreted either way.

<Give Beast-Boy a move action that deals no pushing damage>

What does that mean? The problem is the word "that".

It should read <Give Beast-Boy a move action, he takes no pushing damage>
OR
<Beast Boy can only use Morph when he would not be dealt pushing damage from this action. Give him a move action... >