I think that, when it comes to rules abstractions, "sense" has quite a relative meaning.
The more I read this forum and BBG, the more I find out about things we played "wrong", meaning going with what made the most sense
Abstract rules can make sense, if they are internally consistent and more or less represent the situation they want to model with a minimal degree of verosimilitude
Let's take movement as an example again, because we're talking about it and really it's the worst offender.
Your basic movement option is the move action. When taking a move action you receive movement points equal to your speed. Spending a movement point allows you to move one square; entering difficult terrain (water) costs you two MPs; if you are immobilized you can't gain or spend any MP by any means.
That would be a simple, effective, streamlined method with which to model all movement in this game.
Then you have effect that let you "move up to x", where x in this case is double Jain's speed, but there are others. These are unaffected by things like tripwire, we already know, because that specifically requires a move action. What's more, these allow you to move without gaining or spending any MPs - with a lot of interesting effects. You may undertake them even when immobilized; apparently you can move through difficult terrain without penalties, since you are moving squares, not using movement; and a pit trap would not impede your movement in any way, just leave you stunned at the end of it.
Now try and tell me the authors couldn't have saved everyone a lot of headscratching if Jain's feat (and similar abilities) read something like "gain 10 movement points and perform an attack action; you must spend these points and perform the attack before you take any other action" Ta-dah, now it's modeled similarly to ordinary movement!
(As a side note, I just remembered the volucrix reaver's skirmish works similarly, but that's not as bad since heroes don't interact as much with enemy movement as the OL does through cards)
Then we have "place" effects. These break movement by effectively being teleportation. A knight's Oath of Honor teleports her in the chosen square, cannot be stopped, cannot be targeted by a pit trap in the landing square (she did not enter it, she was placed in it), cannot anything. Syndrael will be able to recover fatigue because she did not move - she was placed! It might even be flavorful with a character like Tomble (hide in the shadows and reappear suddenly and in an unexpected place), but when a knight does it's another headscratcher.
Then we have large monster movement, where shrinking and expanding are just things that happen to their base without being an actual move. Besides silliness with interrupting a move action with another move action, and a general immunity to dififcult terrain, and the card No Rest for the Wicked being a lot more powerful than it was probably intended to be, that means they can get close to a wildlander without triggering nimble for reasons.
then we have fly, and the best thing about it is that as it is written, technically a flying hero could be interrupted by a tripwire or pit trap - you are just ignoring obstacles but still entering empty spaces! It's more like you make small jumps over blocked squares than flying now.
There's not one of these rules that doesn't clash with something else in the same subsystem. This is what I mean with not being internally consistent. This is what I try to avoid when calling for "sense".