Mounted pole arms

[tarnowski1]

Shades of Phil Barker!! Surely we have not come to the point where we must construct sentence diagrams to decipher the rules? It seems clear to me that foot PA cancels CL, mounted PA does not.

and logically it does to me to, however as part of the intent of these rules is to do away with Barkerisms I was inclind to assume this was a deliberate distinction as two other very similar sentences explicitly make the distinction. As to Pk , as its not a legal mounted weapon it does not need qualifying.

luckily we have a forum where I can ask

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Shades of Phil Barker!! Surely we have not come to the point where we must construct sentence diagrams to decipher the rules? It seems clear to me that foot PA cancels CL, mounted PA does not.

Is indeed the case.
Yes in deed i have alas used two different versions of the same thing.
Apologies that I ... and several proof readers missed that.

Foot XX, YY or ZZ, or .... means XX YY ZZ all as foot.
So = Foot XX, Foot YY or Foot ZZ. 
Space saving necessary at times.

Si

[DracoStandard]

"foot with x y or z" might save confusion in the future

[Simon Meg-Meister]

"foot with x y or z" might save confusion in the future

A good thought thank you ...