|
'They capitalized the letters so readers would know they are referring to the Attack action (a Standard action) or a Full-Attack (Full round action).'
Sorry to be blunt, but rubbish!
The words here are capitalised because they are part of a title/heading. It's just good grammar.
'Attack' is a game term, but it is NOT synonymous with 'attack ACTION'! You know as well as I do that an 'attack of opportunity' is an 'attack' but NOT an attack ACTION'. You know that each 'attack' of a 'full attack' is NOT an attack action!
Your assertion is provably untrue.
|
|
Malachi:
Yea, but the line you are quoting that say "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" is in a section about deciding between and Attack or a Full-attack. To use Manyshot you have to use a Full attack, so there is nothing in that section applies, because you are not deciding between an Attack or a Full-
AttackThe entire section of rules being debated is a specific part relevant only to "When deciding between Attack and Full-Attack" and quite frankly it's irrelevant because you are not deciding between the two.
As for "Your continued insistence that the word 'attack' in this rule MUST mean attack action is demonstrably false"; It is in the section about COMBAT ACTIONS. why do you think that they would use attack to mean a specific attack roll as part of an attack in the same sentence as the full-attack action? If that were true you could replace the entire sentence with this:
When deciding between an attack roll or the full-attack action:....rules relevant to making that decision...
quite frankly, that sentence makes no sense.
You say it's in the section about COMBAT ACTIONS. Yes. It's also in the subsection on FULL ATTACK.
|
|
You say it's in the section about COMBAT ACTIONS. Yes. It's also in the subsection on FULL ATTACK.I don't understand what you mean by that, or how it changes what I'm saying. Genuine statement, no sarcasm or ire intended.
You're implying that, because the rule is in the 'combat actions' part of the game, then that proves you're correct in saying that it MUST refer to the attack ACTION.
I'm saying that, if the position of the rule is what clinches the argument, then since the most specific part of the rules containing this rule is the 'full attack' rule, then by your logic this clinches the argument for our camp!
(by the way, I've no idea why the lettering for your statement is smaller than usual. I'm rubbish with computers) : /
Honestly, thinking that in this case it refers to anything other than the Attack action, as many actual dev quotes point out, is bonkers. I don't know what else to say. I suppose that Full Attack in the same heading then also does not refer to the Full Attack action...
Not trying to be mean spirited, but at some point in a debate comes the time to delineate reasonable from unreasonable assumptions, and that assumption is by all measures unreasonable. It is similar to another thread in which someone assumed that the RAI of Overhand Chop was to have 3.5x your Strength bonus on damage. If people are ready to make such assumptions all basis for conversation is gone.
Although it is not explicitly written in the CRB, intervention from a dev (in answer to a different question), says that if you only take a single attack in your turn then that attack was a standard action. Fine. Have I taken only a single attack (of the many I get for a full attack)? Yes. Therefore, at the moment I take that move action instead of making my remaining attacks, my first attack became a standard action, and looking back at the round just gone, it consisted of a standard action plus a move action. It was not a full-round action plus a move action, because a full attack consists of more than one attack because by definition a single attack is a standard action.
So then what you're saying is that a person should be able to Pounce, then abort their remaining attacks in order to keep moving. Because, you see, Charge is not a move action. As you stated above, you cannot use the "Deciding between" mechanic if you have already performed a "Move Action". However, Charge does not contain a Move Action, nor is it defined as a Move Action; it is a "Special Attack". Per your reading, there is nothing wrong with Charging, thereby moving double your movement speed, then (assuming you have the ability to Pounce) making a full attack at the end of your charge, aborting your full attack after the first attack, then moving up to your movement speed.
Now, one might try to argue that Charge only allows you to move before (and not after) your attack (as I did above). However, Charge also explicitly allows a single attack, which Pounce creates an exception to. Because Pounce allows for a full attack to be made at the end of a charge, it necessarily contemplates using the full attack rules and everything that encompasses, including the "Deciding between which version of Full Attack". And, as you have so vociferously argued, I can stop my full attack after making a single attack and then move again. So, with a base speed of 30', I can move 60', attack, then move 30', all in the same round. I mean, at the time I charged and pounced and made my first attack, it was all totally legal, right?
You're admitting that you change what kind of attack you actually made. So, after the fact, it's a standard action. But it's still ok to use a full attack feat because, at the time you made your one and only standard action attack, you totally meant it to be a full attack?
- RAW is, at best, ambiguous, if not simply contradictory
- RAI, on the other hand, is fairly clear from the change to the wording of manyshot.
Given that, insisting that the interpretation of RAW which goes against RAI is the correct one seems to be clutching at straws.
Agreed, except I honestly don't believe that the written rules are particularly ambiguous. It's only ambiguous if you assume a hyperliteral reading of one or two rules, outside of the context of the rest of them, which is a poor way to interpret or understand anything.
|
|
Honestly, thinking that in this case it refers to anything other than the Attack action, as many actual dev quotes point out, is bonkers. I don't know what else to say. I suppose that Full Attack in the same heading then also does not refer to the Full Attack action...
Not trying to be mean spirited, but at some point in a debate comes the time to delineate reasonable from unreasonable assumptions, and that assumption is by all measures unreasonable.
It's not unreasonable to understand 'attack' in this instance to mean 'one attack of the many in a full attack sequence'. It's a sub-section of full attack. Reading the rule exactly as written, after your first attack (implying there's more than one to take), you can (implying a choice not otherwise present in the rules) decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks (implying that you are entitled to more attacks, not possible without taking the full attack action). Whether you agree with this is a separate issue; it's a perfectly reasonable reading of the rule. I have a much harder time swallowing your camp's reading of it, but when I started reading the posts on this thread I realised that there must be some who read it this way, so it can't be such an unlikely interpretation as to be described as 'unreasonable'.
This choice is NOT present under 'standard actions' at all! There is no choice to take a standard action, then take iterative attacks instead of making a move action.
If it were an unreasonable interpretation then the many groups who I've played D20 games with since the last millennium would have encountered problems adjudicating it that way. Not only does the rule work perfectly, it needs no further (made up) rules to make it work (like 'locking you in' to completing an action). We didn't even realise that their WAS another way to interpret this rule until a couple of weeks ago when I first started reading this thread! I only looked at it because I thought it would be people complaining that they changed Manyshot between additions to make it useable in a full attack!
Your camp's defining of the word 'attack' here is specious. You constantly state that 'attack' is defined in the section on 'standard actions' (okay) and then falsely claim (and you KNOW it's false!) that 'attack' therefore means 'attack action i.e. standard action'.
You all know very well that 'attack' can be an attack action, or one element of a full attack, or a free action granted by casting a touch attack spell, or not-an-action when taking an attack of opportunity.
Your continued insistence that the word 'attack' in this rule MUST mean attack action is demonstrably false.
The 'deciding between attack and full attack' here, in less economic language, is 'deciding between only taking the first attack of your full attack, and taking all of your allowed attacks'.
'No where (sic) does it say you can give up your remaining attacks to move' you say. Really? Let's look again:-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'
There it is!
The language of the feats in question (Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack et al) do NOT require you to 'complete' a full attack, as your camp keeps insisting. They use the language 'when MAKING a full attack action'. To use them you need to be making a full attack action AT THE TIME YOU ROLL THAT ATTACK. it says nothing about being forced to 'complete' the action. Indeed, the ONLY written rule that applies here is (wait for it!):-
'After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks'.There is no rule whatsoever 'locking you in' to completing the action, either in the combat chapter or in the feats themselves, despite several claims by your camp to the contrary.
While I do think that the defined "attack" which is a standard action is being used I have also said I can not prove it. Do not attribute one argument to all us that all of us are not making. I do remember you getting upset when I said you were using the "full attack or full attack" term, when it was another person making the argument.
The rules are generally tell you what you can do. I have yet to see a rule saying you do not have to complete an action. By your interpretation of the rules. I could start to use any action, get what I want out of it, and stop it. Is that the intent of the rules? Let's say I tell the GM I am going to charge, but I only move up to double my speed. Since I gave up the attacks do I get to tell the GM I have only taken a move action?
|
|
I certainly do NOT think you can use 'the rule' after a Pounce; I never did, and I was arguing that the extra PF wording in 'the rule' merely clarifies that.
'You're admitting that you change what kind of attack you actually made. So, after the fact, it's a standard action. But it's still ok to use a full attack feat because, at the time you made your one and only standard action attack, you totally meant it to be a full attack?'
Very, very nearly. This is what I believe, except for the part about 'totally meant it'. I don't care if you intended to abort the full attack from the start. Aborting it like this is simply following the rules, and if you want to use the rules to give you tactical options, more power to you!
The Manyshot feat was created specifically to allow archers to get more than one arrow off while still getting a move action; I read the interview where the dev says so. They changed it in PF so that it CAN be used during a full attack (unwisely IMHO), but this did NOT render it totally unusable with a move, because the writer knows about the option given in 'the rule'.
'Are you saying this section of the rules from the combat chapter works the same way it did in 3.5?'
Yes. I think your camp also thinks this. My point is that the extra language in the PF rule does NOT change it, therefore those extra words are not part of the debate (either way) on which interpretation is correct. Especiallcy as those extra words have been explained by our camp anyway.
Since they worked the way they did in 3.5 your argument that then the 3.5 "Rules of the game Article" is correct, and that first attack is a standard action. Either that or Mr.Tweet and Skip can't understand their own writing.
I've answered this question several times, but it's obviously not the answer you wanted. I'll try again. First, I choose the full attack action with my bow. Second, since I have the feat 'Manyshot', without any other statement from me, that 'first' attack shoots two arrows. At this point I am part-way through a full attack, which if completed would be a full-round action. However, 'After (my) first attack, (I decided) to take a move action instead of making (my) remaining attacks'.
Then you did not use a full round action since a full round action takes up the entire round by the rules. Therefore no manyshot, at least not unless you can explain how you can take a full round action(attack) without using the entire round. Do you have quote with a rules exception?
I will admit that was a detailed answer, but it is not fitting within the rules. You can not do a full round action, and not do a full round action in the same round. Either you did or you did not. By you saying you backed out of the full round action it defaults to "did not". Of course if you want to argue that it defaults to "did", then you can not move.
I certainly do NOT think you can use 'the rule' after a Pounce; I never did, and I was arguing that the extra PF wording in 'the rule' merely clarifies that.
'You're admitting that you change what kind of attack you actually made. So, after the fact, it's a standard action. But it's still ok to use a full attack feat because, at the time you made your one and only standard action attack, you totally meant it to be a full attack?'
Very, very nearly. This is what I believe, except for the part about 'totally meant it'. I don't care if you intended to abort the full attack from the start. Aborting it like this is simply following the rules, and if you want to use the rules to give you tactical options, more power to you!
The Manyshot feat was created specifically to allow archers to get more than one arrow off while still getting a move action; I read the interview where the dev says so. They changed it in PF so that it CAN be used during a full attack (unwisely IMHO), but this did NOT render it totally unusable with a move, because the writer knows about the option given in 'the rule'.
So you think the words "full attack" are just there for decoration when used for Manyshot?
Just to be clear PF Manyshot was not designed to work with a standard action. I am all for using 3.5 rulings to clear up PF questions, but only when the words are basically the same. The "option" you have is to use the required action to get use of the feat. You don't have the option of not having the required feat count against your actions, but still retain the benefits.
As for trying to use the 3.5 version for the intent of PF--->mirror image has the same name in both games, but it does not operate the same way. Cleave has also changed. Why? Because the words that tell you how they operate has changed. Manyshot is not an exception.
|
|
I apologise for lumping 'your camp' all together, Wraithstrike! I realise that there ar many separate tents in your camp. I hope you can forgive me; it's hard to simultaneously break down different arguments, even more so if they contradict one another. : /
'The rules are generally tell you what you can do. I have yet to see a rule saying you do not have to complete an action. By your interpretation of the rules. I could start to use any action, get what I want out of it, and stop it. Is that the intent of the rules? Let's say I tell the GM I am going to charge, but I only move up to double my speed. Since I gave up the attacks do I get to tell the GM I have only taken a move action?'
I actually agree with YOU on this. The difference between US is that the 'rule saying you do not have to complete an action', is 'the rule' we are debating!
Sometimes it feels like we are all going round in circles. I'm pleased that your last post is at least trying to move the debate forward.
We are still in different camps, but we are at least narrowing down our debate to the relevant disagreements only. Something I thought I'd achieved with Gauss earlier.
I certainly do NOT think you can use 'the rule' after a Pounce; I never did, and I was arguing that the extra PF wording in 'the rule' merely clarifies that.
How are they different? As I demonstrated, at no point during a Charge/Pounce do you make a move action, which is specifically what is ruled out by the "Deciding between" language. You can exchange your attacks, so long as you have not already performed a move action in the same round. Why can you not apply this same logic to a Charge/Pounce? The extra wording in the PF rule does not do away with that because Charge doesn't involve a move action.
The Manyshot feat was created specifically to allow archers to get more than one arrow off while still getting a move action; I read the interview where the dev says so. They changed it in PF so that it CAN be used during a full attack (unwisely IMHO), but this did NOT render it totally unusable with a move, because the writer knows about the option given in 'the rule'.
In 3.5, but they specifically changed the wording for PF. If it was optional as part of a full attack, why not say "As a part of a full attack or a standard attack ..."? Are they assuming that all their players must necessarily be familiar with all the ins and outs of 3.5 in order to understand how to interpret rules in PF? Or, why mention "full attack" at all? Why not just say, "On your first attack on your turn ..." or something to that nature? That completely avoids the problem altogether. The fact that they didn't choose something so simple, but getting to that result through the language they did use requires quite a lot of bending, explanation, and mental gymnastics, makes me strongly believe that the result really isn't what was intended.
No no, you see that doesn't actually refer to the Attack action, but it is just a generic 'attack'. Convenient isn't it? :P
If Manyshot was intended to function like a standard action attack, why would they completely change the wording to include "full-attack action"?
I think we might be on the same side of this argument.
I guess I don't understand your posts.
I believe that Manyshot can't be use as a standard action.
I believe that Manyshot allows you to get your remaining iterative attacks but doesn't allow you to take a move action.
If Manyshot was intended to function like a standard action attack, why would they completely change the wording to include "full-attack action"?I think we might be on the same side of this argument.
I guess I don't understand your posts.
I believe that Manyshot can't be use as a standard action.
I believe that Manyshot allows you to get your remaining iterative attacks but doesn't allow you to take a move action.
I agree.
Which of my posts are you referring to? These recent few re: charge? I'm granting him the assumption that the "Deciding between" language works like he thinks it does (allows you to use Manyshot as a first attack, then move), then asking him to explain why the same argument doesn't also work for Charge when you have the ability to Pounce. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. But, if it works for Manyshot, it ought to work for Pounce just as well, since you're not making a move action prior to using the "Deciding between" rule when interrupting your full attack action at the end of your charge. In short, it's not really supposed to make sense.
EDIT: Realized you might be referring to my post on Page 20 where I quoted you. I wasn't disagreeing with you there, I was basically just expounding on what you wrote. So sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Probably didn't introduce that particularly artfully.
Which of my posts are you referring to?
I was using the word ambiguity(in a few of my previous post) with reference to the first attack.
Since it can either be the first attack of a full attack action or the only attack of an attack action.
So... not sure what happened I was ready to jump on anything :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which of my posts are you referring to?I was using the word ambiguity(in a few of my previous post) with reference to the first attack.
Since it can either be the first attack of a full attack action or the only attack of an attack action.
So... not sure what happened I was ready to jump on anything :D
Ha! Ok, no worries. So many bullets flying, there's bound to be some friendly fire, right?
Ha! Ok, no worries. So many bullets flying, there's bound to be some friendly fire, right?
Wait. Are we only arguing with one person now?
Ha! Ok, no worries. So many bullets flying, there's bound to be some friendly fire, right?Wait. Are we only arguing with one person now?
I think so. AD didn't want to play anymore (understandable considering the post count and the circling). Hrothgar and Lakeside appear to have changed their minds insofar as RAW is concerned (think Lakeside still prefers to houserule it the other way).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is true that 'attack' is not explicitly defined in the 'deciding between' section, so it's logically possible that it refers to a single attack rather than the attack action. It's highly unlikely, given that it's contrasted with the full attack action and the details are identical to the attack action (a single attack followed or preceded by a move), but it's logically possible.
However, it's also irrelevant. Whether it refers to the attack action or not, the fact that it is "deciding between an attack or a full attack" makes it very clear that whatever it actually is, it is NOT a full attack. So regardless of whether it's an attack action or some unknown thing which is exactly the same as an attack action in all but name, either way it does not meet the full attack requirement for Manyshot.
I actually agree with YOU on this. The difference between US is that the 'rule saying you do not have to complete an action', is 'the rule' we are debating!
r.
I do agree that is part of the argument, but I also think the other issue is changing an action into another action. I have never seen that supported by the rules in 3.5 or PF except with certain special abilities.
An example might be you can move as an immediate action, but even then it is not allowing you to change your action into another action. It is allowing you to use an ability using a different action than normal. 3.5 had an ability called Two weapon pounce that allowed you to make two attacks, one with your primary and the other as the offhand attack as a standard action.
If people are allowed to not complete actions after getting the benefit the charge special action could be abused, but I am sure it is not the only one.
I don't have the mindset that allows me to game the system even though I do know the rules so it might be a while before I can come up with a more relevant example.
Hrothgar and Lakeside appear to have changed their minds insofar as RAW is concerned (think Lakeside still prefers to houserule it the other way).
I still might houserule it, but not right away.
I'm actually leaning away from houseruling to allow a move after the first shot of rapid shot (or two-weapon fighting or flurrying or whatever the other casesmight be, too). Or, houseruling that Vital Strike can be used with the first attack of a full-attack.
To tell the truth, were it not for the first post in this thread, I don't think I'd've ever questioned that Manyshot required a full attack.
When making a full-attack, I'm taking my iteratives!
We are still in different camps, but we are at least narrowing down our debate to the relevant disagreements only. Something I thought I'd achieved with Gauss earlier.
The problem is you reached a point where it's impossible to move forward because you are arguing a logically inconsistent viewpoint. There is no rule that states you must actually take an action to count as taking that action because it's self-evident. During your turn you are either performing a full round action or you are not - you can't be both at the same time. There are no partial full round actions, you either took the action or you did not.
|
|
Moglun wrote: 'There is no rule that states you must actually take an action to count as taking that action BECAUSE IT'S SELF-EVIDENT.' (emphasis mine)
Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?
As to the Pounce question: 'the rule' ONLY applies to those who are taking a full attack ACTION, which is a full-round action. Pounce only applies when taking the charge action, which is a different full round action, and therefore cannot use 'the rule'. Pounce allows a full attack at the end of a charge, but that full attack is NOT a full attack ACTION, nor is it an action at all in this case; it's part of the charge action.
At no point am I taking a full-round action and a standard action at the same time. What started as a full attack became a standard attack+move.
There is nothing stopping you aborting an action, even a charge! If you choose to charge, move up to double your speed (and following the rather harsh conditions applied to that movement), and then decide NOT to attack at the end of it, you can! You still take a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn, and you haven't moved more than you could have in a double move. You can't swap that attack for a different action though. 'The rule' ONLY applies when taking the full attack ACTION.
''"deciding between an attack or a full attack" makes it very clear that whatever it actually is, it is NOT a full attack'
Correct. It's not a full attack ANY MORE. When you make the choice to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks of your full attack, then the first attack of that full attack is NO LONGER part of a full attack, because now there's only one of them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
The part I bolded tells me that this first attack is not necessarily the first attack of a Full-Attack. If you had already moved you couldn't possibly be initiating a Full-Attack, right?
Does this support the idea that a first attack can exist in an indeterminate state before it has been decided whether to Attack or Full-Attack?
Not directly I guess.
But it does counter the idea that this whole paragraph assumes that a Full-Attack has been declared and initiated.
That is, as much as the mention of "remaining attacks" suggests that a Full-Attack is assumed to be in progress, the provision that a move action must not have been taken suggests the possibility that a Full-Attack is not in progress.
The only way to reconcile this to my satisfaction is to arrive at the understanding that it is possible to make an attack which is temporarily not defined as belonging to the standard Attack action or the Full-Attack action.
tl;dr:
"I can take an attack before I decide whether or not to Full-Attack. But to Many Shot, I'll need to Full-Attack"
Before this crazy thread came along, that was all the thought I ever had to give to this issue. 1000+ posts later all the mental gymnastics bring me right back to the same place. But it's been a fun exercise.
|
Zrandrews wrote: 'Manyshot specicially says it is a Full-Attack'.
Not true. Read it again. 'When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows'. Manyshot is NOT a full attack. It's sometimg that happens when making a full attack. There is a difference.
Wow, so this finally comes to an end. So the manyshot feat is made as part of a full attack action, which is declared due to using the manyshot feat, and the only movement allowed is a 5 foot step. Good to see you finally come around.
Hrothgar and Lakeside appear to have changed their minds insofar as RAW is concerned (think Lakeside still prefers to houserule it the other way).
I'm not going to house rule it, I'm just not going to get into this debate with my gaming group. We've been playing the game for years with the wrong interpretation of this rule and it hasn't had any impact on the amount of fun we've had.
I first got into this debate in a thread entitled "Can You Cancel a Full Attack?" In that thread I argued, unsuccessfully, that it was unscrupulous to abuse the rule to get Manyshot essentially as a standard attack and that it was an example of playing the game rather than just playing the game. Fortunately none of my gaming partners ever try to game the system like this. It occasionally, but rarely, happens and one of us starts a full attack and cancels, but it is not game breaking.
But, like I said, I'm glad to know the rule better because of the debate I had here; and, I'm happy to know Manyshot can't legally be abused this way.
Basically what it comes down to for me is this...
The combat round is flexible, fluid, sure... but you can't go back.
That first attack might be your only Attack (a standard) or it might be the first of a Full-Attack routine. Since there's no mechanical difference why not wait and see how it turns out before you decide?
But you can't go back in time and change a Full-Attack to a Standard after you got a mechanical benefit that only comes along with a Full-Attack.
Now you're going back.
I guess I'm just repeating this ad nauseum for malachi's benefit alone at this point? Guess that's kinda weird, I should stop.
Just when I thought this thread could only go around in circles for the rest of eternity, clintoftheeasternwood comes out of left field with some jivetalk I don't even understand!
Edit:just read it like four more times and I think I get it now. Option A is a clever compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the unwritten rule here might look something like this:
clint I didnt mean to be a punk to you. your thing is creative and clever I get it now.
You just save the extra arrow for the 1st iterative if you decide to Full-Attack.
Outside the box thinking.
Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?
Because the rules state that which of the two attack-type actions you are making is (or can be) undefined until after the first attack has been resolved and the decision made. Why is this a problem?
Correct. It's not a full attack ANY MORE. When you make the choice to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks of your full attack, then the first attack of that full attack is NO LONGER part of a full attack, because now there's only one of them!
Which means that the first attack does not qualify for Manyshot, which in turn means that you have created a contradiction in which you are not allowed to use the feat but have still claimed the benefit. That is to say, you've broken the rules.
Lakeside it's funny you were just in the thread that covered this back in april. Lot of experienced minds in that thread seem to lean more with malachi and AD on this huh? But the impression I got was that they were talking more about "is it OP", how will it affect the game to allow it. This time in this thread we were talking more about the RAW and RAI I guess. Anyway I'll just stick with the version that doesn't give me a migraine.
At no point am I taking a full-round action and a standard action at the same time. What started as a full attack became a standard attack+move.
Okay, so how can you take a move action before your first attack with a full attack action?
What started as a full attack can't change into a move + standard attack.
There is nothing stopping you aborting an action, even a charge! If you choose to charge, move up to double your speed (and following the rather harsh conditions applied to that movement), and then decide NOT to attack at the end of it, you can! You still take a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn, and you haven't moved more than you could have in a double move. You can't swap that attack for a different action though. 'The rule' ONLY applies when taking the full attack ACTION.
I think you are correct on this point. You don't have to take the rest of your iterative attacks after using Manyshot... but you can't take a move action either. because "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action..."
Moglun wrote: 'There is no rule that states you must actually take an action to count as taking that action BECAUSE IT'S SELF-EVIDENT.' (emphasis mine)
Really? Then why is your camp arguing that you can take an attack without defining what action it is?
As to the Pounce question: 'the rule' ONLY applies to those who are taking a full attack ACTION, which is a full-round action. Pounce only applies when taking the charge action, which is a different full round action, and therefore cannot use 'the rule'. Pounce allows a full attack at the end of a charge, but that full attack is NOT a full attack ACTION, nor is it an action at all in this case; it's part of the charge action.
At no point am I taking a full-round action and a standard action at the same time. What started as a full attack became a standard attack+move.
There is nothing stopping you aborting an action, even a charge! If you choose to charge, move up to double your speed (and following the rather harsh conditions applied to that movement), and then decide NOT to attack at the end of it, you can! You still take a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn, and you haven't moved more than you could have in a double move. You can't swap that attack for a different action though. 'The rule' ONLY applies when taking the full attack ACTION.
''"deciding between an attack or a full attack" makes it very clear that whatever it actually is, it is NOT a full attack'
Correct. It's not a full attack ANY MORE. When you make the choice to take a move action instead of the remaining attacks of your full attack, then the first attack of that full attack is NO LONGER part of a full attack, because now there's only one of them!
A charge consist of a moving and attacking. Seeing as how your argument is that actions don't have to be complete I can argue that acts don't either. Since I did not attack I did not charge therefore there is not -2 to AC, and now my action is move action instead of a standard action.
That means I can declare a charge as full round action decide to not continue the charge despite moving a distance of double my movement, and cast a spell as a caster. Since there is no rule declaring what action the full round action defaults to if I don't complete it I see no reason why it can't be a move action.
Just to be clear I don't really believe that nonsense I just wrote, but if one is going to argue "if the rules don't say I can't then I can" then I may as well start listing things that can take place with such logic.
PS:I also have yet to see a rule that mentions swapping attacks. It is more like coming to a fork in the road and choosing to go left or right. It is not like trading in 1 gold piece for 10 silver pieces. Iterative attacks after the first one, don't have an equivalent action by the book.
PS2:I agree that manyshot happens when taking a full round attack, and is not a full round attack(Action) in and of itself, but you did not take a full round attack. You only started one by your own admission.
edit:Changed "an attack" to "a charge"