Following the book's very introduction to optics:
Suppose we have a monochromatic wave described by $$\psi = A e^{i (\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x} - \omega t)} = A e^{i \varphi}.$$
The apparent intuition given to the definition of the wave velocity is this: given a fixed value for $\varphi$, say, $\varphi_0$, the geometrical (3D) locus of the "phase of the wavefront" associated with $\varphi_0$ is propagating on space (as time passes), this displacement described by: $$ \varphi_0 = \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x} - \omega t. $$
Now it makes sense to wonder what is the velocity of said propagation of geometrical locus as it evolves with time. Therefore, we might implicitly differentiate the above expression w.r.t. time and get: $$ 0 = \mathbf{k} \cdot \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \varphi_0} - \omega \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; \frac{\omega}{k} = \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \varphi_0} \cdot\mathbf{\hat{k}} $$
If we define $\mathbf{v}_\varphi = \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \text{constant}}$ we get from above: $$ \frac{\omega}{k} = \mathbf{v_\varphi} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{k}} $$
we get the usual textbook definition of phase velocity $v_\varphi = \frac{\omega}{k}$ only if $\mathbf{v_\varphi}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{\hat{k}}$. My question is:
Where exactly does that supposition ($\mathbf{v_\varphi}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{\hat{k}}$) come from? Are there cases where it fails and, if it does fail, does the above dot product relation ($\frac{\omega}{k} = \mathbf{v_\varphi} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{k}}$) and definition of phase velocity still hold?