I mean, the origin of goon in the internet context is from SA, so maybe goonhammer has been a longterm con to troll the entire community with quality content until, at this moment, they reveal the whole thing and shout "Aristocrats!"

From what it looks like, Inquisitors still have to choose between taking a pistol weapon or a weapon from the ranged weapons list. Pretty lame if you ask me.

I don't know if it's a smart move to put so many OOP models in the pics... I counted eleven (not all in the pic below)...

 Sabotage! wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Not only that, but the rule was reworked such that you can't have a hanger-on Assassin & Inquisitor in the same detachment. (Inquisitors now have the Agents of the Imperium keyword, and the rule is the same as it is for Assassins)

It's probably a good desicion in that it limits Imperial design space, but it's still disappointing as now the already struggling Inquisition choices directly compete against Assassins. Between a Hereticus Inqusitor that you need to pay CP on to make decent or an Assassin, its basically not even a competetion.

This is absolutely terrible. I was going to pick up this book once I was able to see some reviews (as I was afraid of something like this for Inquisition) because it made it sound like I would be able to take a Guard detachment with Stormtroopers/Crusaders/Etc. with an Inquisitor and their retinue and then take a Sisters detachment and have a full Ordo Hereticus Army in two detachments. NOT!

I don't know why GW even tries with the Inquisition any more, it's more insulting than anything at this point. Just squat them out of 40k. Or get someone to write a quick free rules PDF. No one should pay for this garbage.

jivardi wrote:I just visited Goonhammer site.

Are they GW owned or something? I don't know their reputation but some random website makes a claim GW lied about certain units and everyone believing them.

Seems far fetched. Again, never heard of them/him/her before this morning so I'm happy to be informed as to how credible they are.

This has to be a troll post?

Goonhammer is amongst the first to put out reviews for nearly every product GW puts out. Ranging from Aeronautica Imperialis all the way to a big new Space Marine book. Their reviews are some of the most in-depth and fair you can find on the web.

Honestly I would trust what they said about a GW product over what GW says about a GW product. They seem to understand GW's games a lot better than GW does.

May come as a shock to you but not all 40k players follow all the 40k site. Hell, there are 12 players at my LGS and I'm the only one who has heard of and visited and posted in this forum on this site.

Get off your high horse. I wasn't trolling, I genuinely don't know them.

I don't think the gist was that you were somehow obliged to know them, but tossing accusations before you do is a bit... off.

And then he helpfully told you a few things about them.

I'm sure it'll be FAQ'd day one.

If GW says I can take an Assassin in my Sisters army, then I will.

If not, then I won't. Doesn't impact my army either way.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
I don't know if it's a smart move to put so many OOP models in the pics... I counted eleven (not all in the pic below)...

MAN I remember a bunch of those dudes in the 4th edition Grey Knights codex, so that really took me back.

jivardi wrote:
I'm sure it'll be FAQ'd day one.

If GW says I can take an Assassin in my Sisters army, then I will.

If not, then I won't. Doesn't impact my army either way.

Why would it be though? It's the same rule Assassins have, and each of the dastasheets for the various Inqusitors were even updated to have the Agent of the Imperium keyword. None of the other units were (not that it would matter since you can only have 1 Agent of the Imperium anyway).
It's clearly intended to be this way.

I'm confused.

Oh nvm, it's the agents of the imperium like joekaro that are apparently unable to be taken by Sisters.

I think. Right? I just hear people squaking about jokaero's.

Space Orangutans aren't Agents of the Imperium. Only Inqusitors and Assassins from the 4 temples.

People talk about Jakaeros because they are generally considered the only Inquistorial warband unit that's a must-have, because of the buff they can give to a kitted out Acolyte unit (or other Jokaeros) and that their weapon is decently strong.


The rule Assassins (and now Inquisitors) have allows 1 Agent of the Imperium unit to be included in a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade detachment without taking up a slot or breaking faction and subfaction bonuses. If they changed the entire rule and only the Inquisitors to function with it, it seems clear that GW only intends players to be able to take a lone Inquisitor like with the rule they originally had. There's no reason to think that they would issue an Errata to suddenly allow you to take Acolytes and the like outside of an Inquisiton Detachment.

Do Inquisitors get to have power armour again like half the models they show....

Nope, from what I can see they're the same as in WD with the exception of the new Keyword.

No power armour, no non-relic wargear that aren't weapons.

jivardi wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Not only that, but the rule was reworked such that you can't have a hanger-on Assassin & Inquisitor in the same detachment. (Inquisitors now have the Agents of the Imperium keyword, and the rule is the same as it is for Assassins)

It's probably a good desicion in that it limits Imperial design space, but it's still disappointing as now the already struggling Inquisition choices directly compete against Assassins. Between a Hereticus Inqusitor that you need to pay CP on to make decent or an Assassin, its basically not even a competetion.

This is absolutely terrible. I was going to pick up this book once I was able to see some reviews (as I was afraid of something like this for Inquisition) because it made it sound like I would be able to take a Guard detachment with Stormtroopers/Crusaders/Etc. with an Inquisitor and their retinue and then take a Sisters detachment and have a full Ordo Hereticus Army in two detachments. NOT!

I don't know why GW even tries with the Inquisition any more, it's more insulting than anything at this point. Just squat them out of 40k. Or get someone to write a quick free rules PDF. No one should pay for this garbage.

jivardi wrote:I just visited Goonhammer site.

Are they GW owned or something? I don't know their reputation but some random website makes a claim GW lied about certain units and everyone believing them.

Seems far fetched. Again, never heard of them/him/her before this morning so I'm happy to be informed as to how credible they are.

This has to be a troll post?

Goonhammer is amongst the first to put out reviews for nearly every product GW puts out. Ranging from Aeronautica Imperialis all the way to a big new Space Marine book. Their reviews are some of the most in-depth and fair you can find on the web.

Honestly I would trust what they said about a GW product over what GW says about a GW product. They seem to understand GW's games a lot better than GW does.

May come as a shock to you but not all 40k players follow all the 40k site. Hell, there are 12 players at my LGS and I'm the only one who has heard of and visited and posted in this forum on this site.

Get off your high horse. I wasn't trolling, I genuinely don't know them.

You are certainly not obliged to know them, but when I saw you had been on the site for several years I figured you did considering how often they are mentioned on the site. I was generally curious if you were trolling because you seemed to imply Goonhammer was lying about something GW bungled In one of their books. Which lead me to 1) Why would anyone do that while reviewing GW products unless they wanted to lose their early access and how would it help them by making less players buy a product or maybe even not continue to play the game? 2) Imply that GW couldn’t make a mistake and that an independent site wasn’t credible.

Which to me doesn’t seem like something a lot of people familiar with GW or GW rules writing would do unless they were trying to pull one over on someone. I wasn’t trying to imply that you somehow made a short coming by not knowing some random website on the internet.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Nope, from what I can see they're the same as in WD with the exception of the new Keyword.

No power armour, no non-relic wargear that aren't weapons.

Fething useless then - thanks

How hard would it have been to just add one more keyword "INQUISITORIAL RETINUE" that lets the other inquisition datasheets be taken if your army includes one "INQUISITOR" without breaking your army bonus?

Or just give them a special inquisition vanguard detachment that has a command benefit of +3 CP. Acolytes are pretty painfully overpriced already, so a CP tax on top makes them DOA (again).

Quasistellar wrote:
How hard would it have been to just add one more keyword "INQUISITORIAL RETINUE" that lets the other inquisition datasheets be taken if your army includes one "INQUISITOR" without breaking your army bonus?

Or just give them a special inquisition vanguard detachment that has a command benefit of +3 CP. Acolytes are pretty painfully overpriced already, so a CP tax on top makes them DOA (again).

How hard would it have been just to not falsely advertise that you could take them in other Imperium detachments, without breaking your detachments, when actually it turns out you can't?

Sadly, this is GW.

I think we're all missing the big picture. Since the only actual unit entries in this book are the extra characters, we should be asking why the heck they didn't flesh out Inquisition properly in the first place. It certainly isn't a space issue, it certainly isn't competing with another faction in the book. Really not sure what the heck they were thinking with Pariah. What a cool place to put all of these battlezone rules......ok.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think we're all missing the big picture. Since the only actual unit entries in this book are the extra characters, we should be asking why the heck they didn't flesh out Inquisition properly in the first place. It certainly isn't a space issue, it certainly isn't competing with another faction in the book. Really not sure what the heck they were thinking with Pariah. What a cool place to put all of these battlezone rules......ok.

It’s not like they couldn’t have reversed their stance on Inquisitors being able to take Null rods, especially now that Sister have them in their kits. Or they could have given us a power armor upgrade stratagem or allowed to to pay points for an upgrade in the datasheet. Or they could have reworded the wargear allowances for Inquisitors so they can take a weapon from both the ranged weapon and pistol weapon lists instead of one or the other.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think we're all missing the big picture. Since the only actual unit entries in this book are the extra characters, we should be asking why the heck they didn't flesh out Inquisition properly in the first place. It certainly isn't a space issue, it certainly isn't competing with another faction in the book. Really not sure what the heck they were thinking with Pariah. What a cool place to put all of these battlezone rules......ok.

Its almost as though there's a gaping content hole where rules for two or more armies should have gone.

Sterling191 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think we're all missing the big picture. Since the only actual unit entries in this book are the extra characters, we should be asking why the heck they didn't flesh out Inquisition properly in the first place. It certainly isn't a space issue, it certainly isn't competing with another faction in the book. Really not sure what the heck they were thinking with Pariah. What a cool place to put all of these battlezone rules......ok.

Its almost as though there's a gaping content hole where rules for two or more armies should have gone.

They've said before they don't consider Inquisition a stand alone army. There was a quote from some GW employee about a guy with a rapier not really fitting with the setting or something. Sooooo I doubt that that was gonna change with Pariah.

Audustum wrote:


They've said before they don't consider Inquisition a stand alone army. There was a quote from some GW employee about a guy with a rapier not really fitting with the setting or something. Sooooo I doubt that that was gonna change with Pariah.

Deathwatch, Harlequins, Sisters and Necrons say how do you fething do.

Audustum wrote:
They've said before they don't consider Inquisition a stand alone army.

And that is fair enough, but there wasn't any effort to make them a non-stand alone army here either.
No allowances for the inquisitors to be joined by their retinues, no meaningful updates to the rules, no interaction with their chambers militant or stormtroopers when fielded as a support unit.

Audustum wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think we're all missing the big picture. Since the only actual unit entries in this book are the extra characters, we should be asking why the heck they didn't flesh out Inquisition properly in the first place. It certainly isn't a space issue, it certainly isn't competing with another faction in the book. Really not sure what the heck they were thinking with Pariah. What a cool place to put all of these battlezone rules......ok.

Its almost as though there's a gaping content hole where rules for two or more armies should have gone.

They've said before they don't consider Inquisition a stand alone army. There was a quote from some GW employee about a guy with a rapier not really fitting with the setting or something. Sooooo I doubt that that was gonna change with Pariah.

Not considering an Inquisition a stand-alone army is fine. But I don't see how an Inquisitor and their retinue have to take up a military formation to accompany whomever they are going to press into service.

Not how absurd not considering Inquisition an army is when they consider Custodes an army. There are probably more full Inquisitors (not including retinues, Interrogators, or other servants of) in a single sub-sector than their are Custodes in the entire Imperium. There are what? Roughly 1000 Custodes in total? Maybe less? Seeing them off of Terra makes even less sense.

 Sabotage! wrote:

jivardi wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Not only that, but the rule was reworked such that you can't have a hanger-on Assassin & Inquisitor in the same detachment. (Inquisitors now have the Agents of the Imperium keyword, and the rule is the same as it is for Assassins)

It's probably a good desicion in that it limits Imperial design space, but it's still disappointing as now the already struggling Inquisition choices directly compete against Assassins. Between a Hereticus Inqusitor that you need to pay CP on to make decent or an Assassin, its basically not even a competetion.

This is absolutely terrible. I was going to pick up this book once I was able to see some reviews (as I was afraid of something like this for Inquisition) because it made it sound like I would be able to take a Guard detachment with Stormtroopers/Crusaders/Etc. with an Inquisitor and their retinue and then take a Sisters detachment and have a full Ordo Hereticus Army in two detachments. NOT!

I don't know why GW even tries with the Inquisition any more, it's more insulting than anything at this point. Just squat them out of 40k. Or get someone to write a quick free rules PDF. No one should pay for this garbage.

jivardi wrote:I just visited Goonhammer site.

Are they GW owned or something? I don't know their reputation but some random website makes a claim GW lied about certain units and everyone believing them.

Seems far fetched. Again, never heard of them/him/her before this morning so I'm happy to be informed as to how credible they are.

This has to be a troll post?

Goonhammer is amongst the first to put out reviews for nearly every product GW puts out. Ranging from Aeronautica Imperialis all the way to a big new Space Marine book. Their reviews are some of the most in-depth and fair you can find on the web.

Honestly I would trust what they said about a GW product over what GW says about a GW product. They seem to understand GW's games a lot better than GW does.

May come as a shock to you but not all 40k players follow all the 40k site. Hell, there are 12 players at my LGS and I'm the only one who has heard of and visited and posted in this forum on this site.

Get off your high horse. I wasn't trolling, I genuinely don't know them.

You are certainly not obliged to know them, but when I saw you had been on the site for several years I figured you did considering how often they are mentioned on the site. I was generally curious if you were trolling because you seemed to imply Goonhammer was lying about something GW bungled In one of their books. Which lead me to 1) Why would anyone do that while reviewing GW products unless they wanted to lose their early access and how would it help them by making less players buy a product or maybe even not continue to play the game? 2) Imply that GW couldn’t make a mistake and that an independent site wasn’t credible.

Which to me doesn’t seem like something a lot of people familiar with GW or GW rules writing would do unless they were trying to pull one over on someone. I wasn’t trying to imply that you somehow made a short coming by not knowing some random website on the internet.

I really haven't seen many mentions of goonhammer. I learn something new everyday. Again, I will wait ALWAYS for official GW FAQ's. Maybe Goonhammer holds weight in some circles but I know if I tried to do something that Goonhammer says I can do amongst MY circle of 40k players they'd be like "who? If they don't work for GW I'm not going to listen to what they say about a certain rule or situation."

Plus, the only thing I was going to do was take a lone Inquisitor so I guess my army isn't affected by the "alleged" lie told by GW.

I dunno how many times this needs to be said. It's nothing to do with Goonhammer. They were just the first one to post a review of the rules. What matters is what the rules say.

You can read the rules yourself on one of the youtube reviews that pages through the book. Just pause it and read the page. You don't need to trust anybody but your own reading comprehension.

It is super, 100% clear that only Inquisitors get the Agent of the Imperium rule, and that you can only take one Agent of the Imperium per detachment, anyway. It wouldn't really matter if the other units got the keyword - the whole point is they are a retinue for the Inquisitor, but based on the rule, you would have to choose between them OR the Inquisitor.

It's the old rule, unchanged except that now you're also competing with Assassins. There is absolutely no intention evident anywhere in the book to allow you to take Inquisition units besides Inquisitors in other Imperium detachments. There is zero chance that this is just a typo - the entire rule would have to be fundamentally rewritten to make possible what the PR release said was possible.

It was just false advertising. Plain and simple.

Or if not false, at the very least quite misleading

I don't think it's either because I don't think the person (or persons) responsible for that rule even new the full implications of what they were writing.

If you were to ask them "So I can take an Assassin and an Inquisitor, right?" they'd probably say "Yeah sure!" without realising that the rules they wrote literally prohibit that within the same detachment, or that taking Inquisitorial hangers on makes Marines/Guard/Sisters/Skitarii forget who they are.

I mean, it can still be false or misleading without malicious intent. I agreed, I quite doubt that whoever wrote the article did so intentionally. They just used a poor choice of wording.

Yeah I doubt it was an intentional lie, I don't see what the benefit would be. But it's still false advertising.

So following on from the Pariah preview debacle, today's faction focus says you can take Inquisition units in a low cost patrol detachment. How does that work when inquisition have no troops? Do we take that as acolytes becoming troops? Or do we presume WarCom have ballsed up again...

Abaddon303 wrote:
So following on from the Pariah preview debacle, today's faction focus says you can take Inquisition units in a low cost patrol detachment. How does that work when inquisition have no troops? Do we take that as acolytes becoming troops? Or do we presume WarCom have ballsed up again...

Always assume that WarCom is wrong (or at the very least, speaking about a context that no rational player functions within) about rules until proven otherwise.

Abaddon303 wrote:
So following on from the Pariah preview debacle, today's faction focus says you can take Inquisition units in a low cost patrol detachment. How does that work when inquisition have no troops? Do we take that as acolytes becoming troops? Or do we presume WarCom have ballsed up again...

They also showed the execution force showing replacing the command benefit of vanguard detachment (which has no benefit innately) with..... no command benefit... the entire article was just an eye roll of useless, terirble, or just flat out wrong information. im at the point where im not going to take any of these seriously and just wait for the actual day 1 faq changes to drop.

An Inquisitor has the power to requisition an army from within the Imperium. He/She should be able to add a patrol, battalion, brigade from the Imperium and have the CPs refunded if he is the warlord, even if he/she leads an inquisitorial retinue.

Abaddon303 wrote:
So following on from the Pariah preview debacle, today's faction focus says you can take Inquisition units in a low cost patrol detachment. How does that work when inquisition have no troops? Do we take that as acolytes becoming troops? Or do we presume WarCom have ballsed up again...

This is no doubt how GW thinks their Inquisition rules work, even if they didn't write them that way.

Every inconsistency with the Inquisition and Assassins can be explained with a sentence that starts "But what we meant was...". In fact that's how so many of their rules feth-ups are explained. There is no greater set of rules writers not seeing the woods for all the trees on this entire planet.

FWIW I never heard back from CS re: my protest that their Inquisition rules preview was false advertising.

Not exactly surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.

I know you are not surprised, but what exactly did you expect them to say?

Maybe "Oops, we apologize for the error, we'll fix it so it isn't continuing to falsely advertise something that isn't accurate?"

Wishful thinking, I know.

It's customer service. Not the design studio.

so I don't have War of the Spider, but are the rules the same as Inquisitors (Agent of the Imperium)? If so, it looks like you can at least add 1 Inquisitor and 1 assassin in a separate detachment without breaking any bonuses. I thought someone said one per army, not one per detachment.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's customer service. Not the design studio.

Which is why I contacted them. This isn't a rules issue. The rules are clear. This is a PR issue, hence a CS issue. Their PR said (still does say, matter of fact) that the product they are selling does something it doesn't. That's false advertising. At a minimum, they need to edit the article to remove the false advertising.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's customer service. Not the design studio.

Which is why I contacted them. This isn't a rules issue. The rules are clear. This is a PR issue, hence a CS issue. Their PR said (still does say, matter of fact) that the product they are selling does something it doesn't. That's false advertising. At a minimum, they need to edit the article to remove the false advertising.

I'm not sure why you are responding to this regarding the WC piece. This has nothing to do with Inquisitorial detachments at all. This is to do with adding an Inquisitor to one detachment and an assassin in another (as long as they are a patrol, batt or brigade).

I'm not sure why you're responding to my post if you're not interested in the topic I am talking about?

The WC piece says you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking the doctrine/benefits/etc. This is simple false. Only Inquisitors - not all Inquisition forces - can be taken in other detachments. The WC piece says the contrary, and is therefore by definition false advertising.

That's what I sent an email protesting, and what I haven't heard back about. The article is still up, and still false.

yukishiro1 wrote:

The WC piece says you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking the doctrine/benefits/etc. This is simple false. Only Inquisitors - not all Inquisition forces - can be taken in other detachments. The WC piece says the contrary, and is therefore by definition false advertising.

That's what I sent an email protesting, and what I haven't heard back about. The article is still up, and still false.

You mean this article?

That says this?

With the changes to how you build a Battle-forged army, many players will be looking to retain as many Command points as possible, while making sure they don’t lose their Detachment’s Chapter Traits or Doctrines, etc. Fortunately, any Battle-forged Imperium army can include one Agent of the Imperium unit – either an Inquisitor or Assassin – in each Patrol, Battalion or Brigade Detachment without losing their powerful Faction abilities. If you want a larger force, you can include the wide variety of Inquisition units in a Vanguard Detachment, or add in an entire Execution Force if you’re aiming for EXTREME assassination!

Why thats entirely...accurate.

No, I don't mean that article. Why would I mean that article? I meant the article I quoted repeatedly earlier in the thread. You know, the one that says what I said it says?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/23/pariah-inquisition-rulesgw-homepage-post-1/

All Inquisition forces can be added into an Imperium Detachment without other units losing their Detachment abilities.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No, I don't mean that article. Why would I mean that article?

Because what you want has already been posted by GW, you just refuse to accept it.

What on earth are you talking about?

The article advertising PA: Pariah is still up, and still falsely advertises a product feature that doesn't exist.

If you aren't interested in the topic feel free not to reply. But quoting another article has nothing to do with the fact that the advertising provided at the time - and still up to this day on their site - falsely describes the product.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're responding to my post if you're not interested in the topic I am talking about?

The WC piece says you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking the doctrine/benefits/etc. This is simple false. Only Inquisitors - not all Inquisition forces - can be taken in other detachments. The WC piece says the contrary, and is therefore by definition false advertising.

That's what I sent an email protesting, and what I haven't heard back about. The article is still up, and still false.

Nevermind, got the quotes all mixed up on whom was responding to whom. Apologies.
Although I think you had my conversation quoted originally and have since edited it.

 bullyboy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're responding to my post if you're not interested in the topic I am talking about?

The WC piece says you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking the doctrine/benefits/etc. This is simple false. Only Inquisitors - not all Inquisition forces - can be taken in other detachments. The WC piece says the contrary, and is therefore by definition false advertising.

That's what I sent an email protesting, and what I haven't heard back about. The article is still up, and still false.

Nevermind, got the quotes all mixed up on whom was responding to whom. Apologies.

No problem. Happens to us all.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're responding to my post if you're not interested in the topic I am talking about?

The WC piece says you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking the doctrine/benefits/etc. This is simple false. Only Inquisitors - not all Inquisition forces - can be taken in other detachments. The WC piece says the contrary, and is therefore by definition false advertising.

That's what I sent an email protesting, and what I haven't heard back about. The article is still up, and still false.

Nevermind, got the quotes all mixed up on whom was responding to whom. Apologies.

No problem. Happens to us all.

Delete....my computer hates me

yukishiro1 wrote:

The article advertising PA: Pariah is still up, and still falsely advertises a product feature that doesn't exist.

Yeah, no it doesnt. Furthermore, rules evolve. 9th is here, Inquisition covered the appropriate ground in the second article, and those rules take priority.

Unless of course you want to send GW an email for every page that has rules that have been FAQed, replaced or otherwise updated. Given that they have pages going back to at least 7th, that's gonna be a *lot* of work.

Sterling191 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

The article advertising PA: Pariah is still up, and still falsely advertises a product feature that doesn't exist.

Yeah, no it doesnt. Furthermore, rules evolve. 9th is here, Inquisition covered the appropriate ground in the second article, and those rules take priority.

Unless of course you want to send GW an email for every page that has rules that have been FAQed, replaced or otherwise updated. Given that they have pages going back to at least 7th, that's gonna be a *lot* of work.

Everything you said here is simply wrong. The statement I quoted was wrong when it was made. It's still wrong. It has nothing to do with FAQs, or changes between 8th or 9th. The PR for the Pariah book says one thing, the book itself says something different. It really is that simple.

I feel like you aren't really following the conversation.

yukishiro1 wrote:

I feel like you aren't really following the conversation.

You would be wrong. Im following the conversation perfectly fine. You're just having a complete meltdown about an irrelevant topic that has been mooted by rules updates.

GW gets flavor text wrong for their rules in WarCom articles all the time. It's why they have two different bits of content in their articles, descriptive text and actual rules images. The former are rules, the latter is filler. Expecting the second to carry the weight of the first is exceptionally misguided. Having an internet tantrum about it even moreso.

And again, we're in 9th now. Agents of the Imperium, like every other army, is slated to get a day one rules update. Expecting 8th edition rules, correct or not, to apply to the 9th edition present is an exercise in self-flagellation.

If you think it's "exceptionally misguided" to expect their rules previews to be accurate about basic features of the product the preview is trying to sell you, that's an opinion you're welcome to have. I don't think it's an area we're going to find agreement, and it would certainly be an interesting argument to be making in court to defend a false advertising complaint: "You can't expect us to be right about our own products! That's crazy!"

Meanwhile, the statement was wrong when made, still is wrong, and is still up on their site. You clearly don't care, so I'm not sure why you're so invested in insulting me for caring, but I don't think it's a productive use of anybody's time.

Hey guys, both lists are out and about now for some time now, so we're going to lock this one up, so please take all future discussion regarding these two things elsewhere, thanks.