Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do we need to beat this poor, tired, dead horse yet again?

Obvious mistakes are obvious and being dogmatic for internet points impresses no one.

The question has also been answered by the FAQ so any bickering over RAI and RAW is off topic.

I think RAI doesn't really matter once the FAQ makes its ruling. Sure, we can't ever know if it was intended or not, but given GW's track record, it's more likely to be a mistake than an intentional choice, especially on rules like damage reduction where we already have precedents that don't reduce damage to 0.

Still I'm not against the idea of damage being reduced to 0. It'd be a fun way of actually showing something is resilient, even disgustingly so.

But the funniest part of this all is in another part of the book, I will look for it after work. There is ability that gives a adaptus sarority character -1 dam say min of 1. So they do have that in the book but left out those two for celestine and the war suit