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.

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.