Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5344099" data-attributes="member: 71571">Except that's not what we're talking about. The statement is pretty clear.'When you take two of the same move action in a row, you are taking a double move.'Your counter argument is appropriate for the form B -> A, but the statement in question is of the form A <-> B.  The rules say, firstly, when you take the same move action twice in a row, you are taking a double move (A -> B) then to take a double move, you must take the same move action twice in a row (B -> A); (A -> B) and (B -> A) becomes (A <-> B).  It says that taking two of the same move action in a row IS a double move.  What is a double move?  It's when you take two of the same move action in a row.  Are you taking two of the same move action in a row?  Then it's a double move.This is mutual implication, rather than unilateral implication.If you take the same shift action in a row, you're taking a double move.  What makes sense, and what is RAW are not the same thing.  I've argued your way can make sense in some games, and DMs should do it that way.  I've also argued that RAW gives a strange corner case, and it creates an odd interaction.  But, RAW, regardless of how you want to present it... two of the same move action in a row = a double move.  You seem to think that it is optional.... it is actually not."On your turn, you can move twice if you take a move action instead of a standard action. If you take the same move action twice in a row—two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls—you’re taking a double move."In your example, you're taking the walk action, then taking a walk action.  That's walk actions twice in a row.  By the rules, you're taking a double move.</blockquote>

Verification