Fair points all, and thanks for the clarification on the rule, but it comes across as lazy when something they've specifically had to FAQ due to it being unclear in one book is left with the same wording.
As for the proof reading comment it's more for poor use of english at points in the book than unclear rules, and admittedly it's nowhere near as bad as, for example, when they did WFRP 2nd ed. Probably just me being a bit of a purist with language, but to be fair that is why proof readers are employed... Still, my apologies if I've ruffled any feathers.