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.

Duty Eternal states "Each time an attack is allocated to this model, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack"
9th edition said (to a minimum of 1) but that's not there anymore, so....any weapon with DMG = 1 does nothing to it.

Wondering if this was purposefully omitted, or just an oversight, or am I missing something?

Raw true.

But seeing gw keeps forgetting that minimum clause and errataes it back constantly not expecting any different this time either

Will almost certainly be FAQed, but credit to you for jumping on this quicker than p5.

I expect the rules glossary, that is missing from the Core Rules PDF, probably states that Characteristics cannot be reduced below 1. This would remove the need for any rule to state that.

You follow RAW till its faq'd otherwise but all datasheets have been worded this way so I'm looks intentional rather than in other editions where minimum of 1 was on most datasheets and it was missed off a couple

In absence of full rules and first FAQ you can’t conclude it was intentional here. If anything precedent dictates it’s likely unintentional oversight.

You have core rules and the index rules that is full rules. Precedent from 9th is irrelevant its a different edition and things change between editions e.g. order of operations.

And an unpublished FAQ is irrelevant until it is published.

This rule is crystal clear and consistent across datasheets, many people just don't like it because it is obviously overpowered.

U02dah4 wrote:
You have core rules and the index rules that is full rules. Precedent from 9th is irrelevant its a different edition and things change between editions e.g. order of operations.

Still missing the glossary, so not the full rules yet.

Assuming that GW writes consistent rules (which is not a great assumption I realize), there's support for the 'no minimum of 1' for Duty Eternal, DA Deathwing Knights' Inner Circle, and DG Disgustingly Resilient strat in the Astra Militarum datasheets.

If you look at the Bullgryn Squad datasheet in the AM index released today, you'll see the following:

Wall of Muscle: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack (to a minimum of 1)

So there's a parenthetical that limits this ability to reducing damage to 1 that we don't see in the other damage-reducing abilities. If this parenthetical is merely a 'reminder' then we might expect GW to quickly add that parenthetical to the other abilities or put out a clarification. But until that happens, and as before if we assume GW's rules writers are consistent between Indexes (again not a great assumption), I'm leaning towards thinking that the other damage-reduction abilities may actually be intended to reduce D1 attacks to D0, while this one can't reduce D1 to D0.

 Thariinye wrote:
But until that happens, and as before if we assume GW's rules writers are consistent between Indexes (again not a great assumption)

In this case it would be inconsistent within the Index, as the Guard Armoured Might stratagem has -1 damage without the limitation.

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifie


Rule glossary had this covered

Seems I was right about this. Can't wait to actually see the Rules Glossary to confirm with my own eyes.

U02dah4 wrote:
You have core rules and the index rules that is full rules. Precedent from 9th is irrelevant its a different edition and things change between editions e.g. order of operations.

And an unpublished FAQ is irrelevant until it is published.

This rule is crystal clear and consistent across datasheets, many people just don't like it because it is obviously overpowered.

That’s… not how rules work in an incomplete ruleset being released piecemeal. “Many people just don’t like it” is disingenuous positioning of an opposing viewpoint as absurd, don’t do it.

It’s patently obvious from precedent that GW didn’t intend to make things immune to D1. It’s an oversight to be FAQ’d, or is covered in a Glossary. Not something to posture over as you’ll look very silly later.

Not oversi@ht. Coverea :n glossary

tneva82 wrote:
Not oversi@ht. Coverea :n glossary

im confused still tneva, are you saying that this is immune to D1 weapons?

"The exception to this is where a rule specifies that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is applied before any other modifiers"

it doesnt say that here.

Yes. As I said. This is covered in the rule glossary.

People assumed it was oversight because it didn't specify to minimum of 1.

Not an oversight. The answer was on the rule glossary. Just because we hadn't been given it yet didn't mean rules didn't cover it. People just jumped to wrong conclusion not having seen whole rulebook yet.

Yeah that refers to Enhancements etc that let you make e.g. the first Wounding Hit into zero Damage.

Damage can’t otherwise be modified below 1.

so you aren't concerned that the commentary says it has to specify that it can be reduced to 0 and in this case it does not?

#1: Some rules let you set the damage of an attack to 0.
#2: Some rules let you reduce the damage by 1.

Glossary says that case #2 cannot reduce damage below 1, but case #1 can.

its not rocket science.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
so you aren't concerned that the commentary says it has to specify that it can be reduced to 0 and in this case it does not?

No? Because it means duty eternal doesn't take it to 0 just as every sane person knew it works...