I think between both your posts, I've managed to figgure out where my interpertation could be said to be a little off. As I was reading it, it was essentially claiming that the movement in the attack was a part of the attack or standard action. This is becuase it states "while using the attack action... you can move both before and after your attack." This to my brain seems to indicate that the movement is part of the attack (standard) action, and hence does not explicitly use up the move action.
However, it claims that spring attack is used while using the attack action, it does not state that the movement is used during the attack action.
This means that according to your, 'always fall back to basic rules' mantra, one can assume that this does not mean that the movement is part of the standard action, though it could be interperted that way.
Thank you all for your help, while I didnt get an explicit answer (though Durin more or less confirmed what I had come to assume from my own searches) I did get clarification on why you interpert the rule the way you do.
However, it claims that spring attack is used while using the attack action, it does not state that the movement is used during the attack action.
This means that according to your, 'always fall back to basic rules' mantra, one can assume that this does not mean that the movement is part of the standard action, though it could be interperted that way.
Thank you all for your help, while I didnt get an explicit answer (though Durin more or less confirmed what I had come to assume from my own searches) I did get clarification on why you interpert the rule the way you do.
