Wh40k 10th Edition Imperial Agents Index

[TrawlingCleaner]

I am the law

Edited June 15, 2023 by TrawlingCleaner

[Mazer Rackham]

[Doghouse]

Not what I was hoping for. 

 

Might bring a little bit of flavour to an existing army as a bolt on but I had hoped we'd see Inquisitorial Storm Troopers or enough to field a force on their own and given the new Kill Team models I thought they would have done more with the Henchmen. Maybe when if a codex drops things may change.

 

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

While I was hoping for an independent Inquisition force similar to the old Daemonhunters and Witchhunters codexes, the Assassins, Inquisitors, and Acolytes entries all look really cool and fun to play with alongside another Imperium force. 

[Dried]

Inquisitorial Henchmen can't ride in any transport or did I read wrong?

[CL_Mission]

11 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

Not what I was hoping for. 

 

Might bring a little bit of flavour to an existing army as a bolt on but I had hoped we'd see Inquisitorial Storm Troopers or enough to field a force on their own and given the new Kill Team models I thought they would have done more with the Henchmen. Maybe when if a codex drops things may change.

 

I was very much hoping for the same thing. I'm happy they are easy to include in other armies for the time being but I'll hold out hope that the index means we'll see a codex and that might have something more favourable. 

[GenerationTerrorist]

Shame you can't take all 4 Assassins as an "allied detachment" in an Imperium army.

[Squark]

For better or for worse, this is pretty much exactly what they told us to expect.

[Trokair]

I can see myself playing these for boarding action sized games.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Trokair

[Verevolf]

Would be great to have a Rogue trader based army for a first encounter on an alien planet or something. Shame it isn't a full army of sorts.

 

[Doghouse]

5 minutes ago, Verevolf said:

Would be great to have a Rogue trader based army for a first encounter on an alien planet or something. Shame it isn't a full army of sorts.

 

 

I came close to building an Arbites precinct force lead by a Judge proxy using the Inquisitor rules when Ark of Omens dropped. Glad I didn't now. 

[Emperor Ming]

Hard to comment when we don't know points

 

If agents and inq get massive pts reductions then fine

 

Otherwise they might as well shuffle of to legends and I wouldn't be fussed,

 

It would save me looking every update to see if they have done anything to make them at least viable. 

[Noserenda]

Hehe i built an arbites army back in the witchhunter codex days, sold most of it off but still got some Arbites chimeras in a box somewhere. I thought about re-creating it but the infantry are pricy :cuss: these days. Im hoping we get a few things like Repressors in Legends/FW index though.

[N1SB]

Hi guys :D I might be secretly pleased by this for silly reasons, assuming the following 2 conditions are true:

• Imperial Agents don't break Faction rules like Chapter Tactics (up to 1 to 3 can be added, doesn't change the Faction)
• AND the points cost of Voidsmen-At-Arms are around the same cost as Guardsmen, when we get those numbers

The result of this is that, for more elite armies like Loyalist Space Marines, Grey Knights and definitely Custodes, Voidsmen-At-Arms may be the go-to choice for cheap home objective sitters.  It'd be like how Chaos Space Marines use Cultists as the El Cheapo objective sitters.  With Objective Secured being replaced with the Objective Control stat, Voidsmen are the equivalent of Troops Battleline with an OC of 2, and you can take a minimum-sized unit of 5 guys (so for that purpose it'll be cheaper then 10 Guardsmen or 10 Cultists).  I might even give them the dog (if the dog is cheaper than an actual Voidsmen...it'd be satirically funny if it's not, like a dog is worth more than a man in the Imperium).

 

But why does this amuse me?  Because it's a nod back to 1st ed, when 40k was called Rogue Trader, where (at least Imperial) armies are seconded to Rogue Traders and it's their ships that bring them to their battlefields.  The Voidsmen are like the Rogue Traders' guys-in-the-field with eyes-on situation, not really doing much fighting, just reporting back.  I've been playing Chaos last 2 editions (omg it's been so long), this weird callback might be enough to get me to play Imperials again.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  If, by sheer law of large numbers I'm actually right this one time, I'm really chuffed.

[Squark]

Your first assumption is correct. The second is obviously anyone's guess until Friday.

[Doghouse]

3 hours ago, N1SB said:

Hi guys :D I might be secretly pleased by this for silly reasons, assuming the following 2 conditions are true:

• Imperial Agents don't break Faction rules like Chapter Tactics (up to 1 to 3 can be added, doesn't change the Faction)
• AND the points cost of Voidsmen-At-Arms are around the same cost as Guardsmen, when we get those numbers

The result of this is that, for more elite armies like Loyalist Space Marines, Grey Knights and definitely Custodes, Voidsmen-At-Arms may be the go-to choice for cheap home objective sitters.  It'd be like how Chaos Space Marines use Cultists as the El Cheapo objective sitters.  With Objective Secured being replaced with the Objective Control stat, Voidsmen are the equivalent of Troops Battleline with an OC of 2, and you can take a minimum-sized unit of 5 guys (so for that purpose it'll be cheaper then 10 Guardsmen or 10 Cultists).  I might even give them the dog (if the dog is cheaper than an actual Voidsmen...it'd be satirically funny if it's not, like a dog is worth more than a man in the Imperium).

 

But why does this amuse me?  Because it's a nod back to 1st ed, when 40k was called Rogue Trader, where (at least Imperial) armies are seconded to Rogue Traders and it's their ships that bring them to their battlefields.  The Voidsmen are like the Rogue Traders' guys-in-the-field with eyes-on situation, not really doing much fighting, just reporting back.  I've been playing Chaos last 2 editions (omg it's been so long), this weird callback might be enough to get me to play Imperials again.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  If, by sheer law of large numbers I'm actually right this one time, I'm really chuffed.

 

This is what I am tempted to do. I'd like to do Inquisiton but I'm leaning towards now is a Rogue Trader and two units of Voidsmen assuming Strike Force is the standard. Then attach them to Astartes and maybe a Knight if you can (not checked). That way I can get a more mixed crusade feeling force with some creative conversions which MAY lure me into trying 10th.

[Sete]

So how does this work with Tempestus?

 

Can't take them?

[WAR]

And still no Inquistor Erasmus Cartavolnus rules 

 

Hopefully it just a hold over. 

 

@Sete I was wondering that too. 

[Doghouse]

I think as it stands now the only way around it is you'd have to attach the Agents of the Imperium to Scions taken as a Guard army and paint them in Inquisitorial colours.

[Squark]

35 minutes ago, Sete said:

So how does this work with Tempestus?

 

Can't take them?

These are rules for taking Inquisitors et al in other imperial armies. If scions were in this pdf, they'd be available to all imperial armies, which isn't something GW wants.

 

Since they don't have a detachment of their own, Imperial Agents aren’t legal as an army of their own in matched play. If you want imperial stormtroopers, what you need to do is start woth a Tempestus Scions army and add an inquisitor and a few retinues. The problem is that if you make the inquositor your warlord, Scions aren’t batteline, because GW forgot Inquisitorial Stormtroppers were a thing. Then again, warlords are largely vestigal as of this edition as far as I can tell, so you aren’t losing any mechanical flavor by making a tempestor prime your warlord.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Squark

[Squark]

Edit: Quoted myself instead of editing. Whoops.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Squark

[Tokugawa]

Agents should be designed for "filling the missing pieces", not for making a broken unit/army more broken. e.g. If you want cp regeneration very much, but your army don't have any, you can try Coteaz.

[Karhedron]

16 hours ago, N1SB said:

The result of this is that, for more elite armies like Loyalist Space Marines, Grey Knights and definitely Custodes, Voidsmen-At-Arms may be the go-to choice for cheap home objective sitters.  It'd be like how Chaos Space Marines use Cultists as the El Cheapo objective sitters.  With Objective Secured being replaced with the Objective Control stat, Voidsmen are the equivalent of Troops Battleline with an OC of 2, and you can take a minimum-sized unit of 5 guys (so for that purpose it'll be cheaper then 10 Guardsmen or 10 Cultists).  I might even give them the dog (if the dog is cheaper than an actual Voidsmen...it'd be satirically funny if it's not, like a dog is worth more than a man in the Imperium).

 

I have been thinking along the same lines for my Imperial Knights. I originally built a Rusty17 detachment back in 8th so I am scratching my head and wondering if any of the units in the Index can be proxied by Skitarii with a suspiciously bionic looking Inquisitor. 

 

[Silas7]

3 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I have been thinking along the same lines for my Imperial Knights. I originally built a Rusty17 detachment back in 8th so I am scratching my head and wondering if any of the units in the Index can be proxied by Skitarii with a suspiciously bionic looking Inquisitor. 

 

 

Those look like voidsmen with lasrifles to me

Edited June 15, 2023 by Silas7

[Lord_Ikka]

Not so happy about the Henchmen themselves- their weapons are pretty pathetic being just pistols (though with -1AP) and regular melee attacks. I'd prefer some autoguns or lasguns to give them some sort of ranged punch. Otherwise pretty much exactly as expected, not great but ok.

 

Bonus, I can use my Palanite Enforcers to count-as Arbites squads, so that is kinda fun.