It's not the semantics or the type of action. It's that the hovering characters have their own rule and exception to that rule. For movement, they are treated differently than grounded figures and can ignore other characters however for break away purposes they are treated as grounded figures. Hence, they need to break away before moving if they begin adjacent to an opposing figures.

Phasers are treated differently than other characters as they also ignore figures during movement. There is nothing that says they are treated the same for break away purposes so they don't have to break away.

so we're in agreement...just coming to it in diferent manners. well dreaddormammu do you need any one else to give an opinion on this or are you satisfied with this.....

Well, I certainly don't think it would be bad if Phasing gave a free breakaway. But I would like to see a more official ruling from Wizkids. Basically, if "ignores opposing figures for movement" meant free breakaway why would they have worded L/C and HSS the way they did? They ignore figures and specifically give free breakaways.

It's really the L/C and HSS descriptions which led me to the question, not the Phasing description.

I would expect to ask any judge at any tourney I played (as Psylockeslover suggested) but at some point I hope we get something firm from WK.

well for sure we can agree that wiz kids did not look at what they wrote with a "critical eye", as is always the case...whennever you get intelligent people playing a game...every angle will be approached; this is another example of looking at the rules and saying ..."wait a minute....". You had good points DD. better wording would help.

The reason that HSS, at least, has to have a different wording is that it doesn't allow you to ignore figures. A figure with only HSS can't run through an opposing figure, and so that wording would not be accurate for HSS.

For L/C, I'd guess it's because one of the most distressingly-oft-asked question in the old rules set was whether or not L/C granted automatic breakaway, prompting a FAQ entry specifically to that effect, prompting a similar line to be included in the updated PAC.