Codex: Imperial Agents + Coteaz Reveal + Chamber Militant Battleforces

[Lord_Ikka]

=][=As much as I may personally enjoy the discussion about plastic vs resin or anything thereabouts, this thread is specifically for discussion of the new Imperial Agents codex and its contents- I would encourage anyone who wants to continue the other discussion to create a new thread in the Amicus section. Please keep on topic. =][=

[Indy Techwisp]

I'll say this:

The Codex seems set to "grow" as the edition progresses.

 

Any future Deathwatch or Non-Faction Specific Imperium Killteams are very likley gonna be slipped into this codex via a download able datasheet, which means more tools to work with.

Additionally, if the rumors of "Warhammer Quest" coming back to 40k with a BSF style thing are true, that would probably bring even more units to this codex via download.

 

TL;DR while the Codex's options aren't as good now as we hoped, it's possible we may get more stuff added to it later expanding our options.

[ThePenitentOne]

Good point Indy. I certainly hope the dex grows, and I think a few things may be errata- the one the Goons talk about most is the Generic Inquisitor's current ability to get an Ordo Keyword, which excludes it from using any Ordo strats. That's something that is clearly an oversight and not intentional.

 

Similarly, the Astartes keywords on DW units. You don't have to worry about them double-dipping as someone implied in a previous post- there's no way to shoehorn non-DW Marine units into  a Xenos detachment, and even if you could, they wouldn't be able to bring Marine detachment abilities with them... Because they'd be in a Xenos detachment.

 

Similarly, if you're shoehorning DW Units into an SM army, they don't get the Xenos detachment rules... Because they're not in a Xenos detachment. To be clear: yes, they would be double dipping in the sense that they HAD both Keywords, but it isn't really double dipping sense they would only ever be able to use one at a time.

[DemonGSides]

Deathwatch don't have Adeptus Astartes keyword because they don't want you using any strats on them when they are coming in as allied.

 

Whether that's a good decision or not I have no idea, it could have balance ramifications. But the WHY they did it isn't unknown; they don't want cross faction strategem usage. 

[Emperor Ming]

 

Deathwatch don't have Adeptus Astartes keyword because they don't want you using any strats on them when they are coming in as allied. 

 

Some might call it, The End and the Death

[HeadlessCross]

 

 

Guard actually might really like it. Bullgryns are really tough to shift, but their output compared to other dedicated melee armies pretty mediocre. The AP1 just doesn't cut it, literally and figuratively.

 

So Bullgryn are an anvil and a roadblock. The melee rhino bomb is a hammer, aiming to remove something.

 

As for Knights...it's a more mobile hammer I guess, with an easier time to move around. The moving through walls for the big ones solved a lot of issues, but infantry is still so much better at getting around.

 

Anyway, adding some DW or properly dangerous assasins to my Guard is definitely interesting now. Shame I can't take two Eversors. :P

 

As for Eisenhorn, it might be because he was a Black Library release, which is also why he's resin. Missing him is a shame either way, especially given the lack of customisation/ordo keyword for generic inquisitors.

That first pip of AP is the most important one in a game with a nice plethora of Invul Saves, and Bullgryn get actual benefit from being included in said army. The Rhino bomb will only work on someone that brought literally no D2 weapons and can't blow up a Rhino for whatever reason. 

 

It's not a benefit for everyone. This codex was straight up made to paywall Assassins.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

Deathwatch don't have Adeptus Astartes keyword because they don't want you using any strats on them when they are coming in as allied.

 

Whether that's a good decision or not I have no idea, it could have balance ramifications. But the WHY they did it isn't unknown; they don't want cross faction strategem usage. 

 

And again, this would be fine if they could use Xenos Strats while they are Allied.

 

Look, ALL units in the game are supposed to be balanced for use with access to strats. Assigned Agents cannot use strats, therefore they should be CHEAPER than other units in the detachment they've joined... Because characters will have access to up to 12 more rules and other units will have access to eight. That's a pretty big deal. I feel like no matter how good an Agent datacard is, the equivalent point value in units that have access to an Army Rule, a Detachment Rule and strats is almost always better.

 

It certainly is in a Marine detachment.

 

Now again, I get that what you and others who post ideas like these are just trying to explain WHY GW did what they did, not necessarily to endorse the rule. But GW's rationale does not stand up. As I said in my post above, if assigned agents got rules from bothe detachments at the same time, then yes, there would be a need to prevent them from doing that- and whether GW insisted they keep their Agents detachment rules despite being assigned, or whether GW decides that Agents can access the rules of the detachment to which they are assigned is irrelevant; what doesn't work is the current system, where Agents get Jack if you assign them.

 

A unit without an army rule, a detachment rule and strats is a unit that isn't really included in the game; it may be on the table, but it can't actually participate in the game in a way that is meaningful enough to justify its inclusion. The equivalent points are always better spent on something that does have access.

 

It's particular an egregious situation for Deathwatch, because THEY LITERALLY ARE SPACE MARINES. And the thing is, GW's new detachment system creates a situation were EVERY MARINE can already use detachment rules that were clearly not developed with their chapter's fluff and fighting style- no biker is better than any other biker, because the only thing that has any impact on the performance of a given task is the detachment in which the unit finds itself at any given time. Since any Ultramarine can be as good at Blood Angelling as any Blood Angel, provided they show up in a Blood Angel detachment, why can't Deathwatch be as good at Blood Angelling when the Inquisitor says "Today, we're working with Blood Angels" (or rather, an army using the Blood Angels detachment, since that's what actually makes a Marine good at Blood Angelling, rather than actually BEING a Blood Angel).

 

Obviously, the subtext here is that I don't really like detachments being the source of battlefield uniqueness anyway- I much preferred when subfactions had identities rather than all of them being able to do everything depending on how they organized themselves. I had come to accept it, because as I've written elsewhere, it does have some advantages- you can try anything in the book without feeling bad because your models aren't the right colour. So I put on my big boy pants, and I thought, "You know what? Not be preference, but that's okay- the game can still be fun."

 

But now, we have a situation where the philosophy behind detachment based rules could really be used in a good way... And this is the one place where GW chooses not to stick to that philosophy.

 

Seriously! :cuss: GeeDubbs? 

[Taliesin]

As for the codex itself, which I would buy simply for the lore section and not the rules....I like what there is, and it has some real nice artwork, however at a massive EUR 47.50 that is just too much money for some 30 pages of lore, which is what it has when you take out 8 pages of short stories that are interspersed.

 

I wish there was a more substantial lore portion basically. This is nice, but very brief, and quite a substantial cost.

[ThePenitentOne]

Like you, I'm definitely grabbing this dex, and despite its flaws, I think I will have fun with it, even when I'm being 100% compliant with official rules.

 

And in situations where I can houserule, it's going to be amazing; houserules are easier when you have more to work with, and this book absolutely IS a better starting point than what we had. And tomorrow, the Goonhammer Crusade review will be up, so I'm pretty stoked about that.

 

So while I may sound negative in some posts, I am still looking forward to this, and yes, it will still be fun to play with.

[Dr. Clock]

 

I am still looking forward to this, and yes, it will still be fun to play with.

Agreed, I just won't pay for it until and unless they revise some of the nonsense limitations that get in the way of people using their Deathwatch armies how they were before: as Space Marines with some other Agents supporting them. What they've added in effect is a huge opportunity cost on taking Kill Teams in a marines army simply in that including them now 'takes up a slot' that had been going to Arbites or Breachers.

 

The simplest fix I can think of is:  "Deathwatch Kill Teams may be included in a Space Marines Detachment. Taken in this way, they lose the keyword Battleline, and gain the keyword Adeptus Astartes. If a Space Marines detachment includes any Deathwatch Kill Teams, none may also be taken as Imperial Agent Retinue allied units."

 

Bang - you can now take up to 3 teams in one of the 6 Marines detachments, the teams now benefit from some Marine rules, and you can use them at the same time as a couple other Retinues (or at least give 2 of them a Corvus?).

 

Seriously - why is Corvus a Retinue and not a Requisition? If I could just get 2 watchmasters,  2x10 marines and 1 Corvus as allies under the existing rules, I might buy the Codex in its current form. If Breachers and Arbites could get in chimeras, again I might buy the codex! I'

 

For now this is way underbaked and with far too many arbitrary restrictions in an edition where you're supposed to be able to 'bring whatever' under rule of 3. This feels like it's so much more restrictive than the FOC ever was, and I'm just not paying for that.

 

Heck - the easiest fix that could make me buy the book is just to increase the caps on ally units by 1 across the Board, or even make basically all Retinues also Requisitions so that you can actually take a meaningful number of those things in other lists, instead of this measly trickle.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Indy Techwisp]

 

The simplest fix I can think of is:  "Deathwatch Kill Teams may be included in a Space Marines Detachment. Taken in this way, they lose the keyword Battleline, and gain the keyword Adeptus Astartes. If a Space Marines detachment includes any Deathwatch Kill Teams, none may also be taken as Imperial Agent Retinue allied units."

 

Bang - you can now take up to 3 teams in one of the 6 Marines detachments, the teams now benefit from some Marine rules, and you can use them at the same time as a couple other Retinues (or at least give 2 of them a Corvus?).

 

Seriously - why is Corvus a Retinue and not a Requisition? If I could just get 2 watchmasters,  2x10 marines and 1 Corvus as allies under the existing rules, I might buy the Codex in its current form.

 

So:

That still means you can't take a Watchmaster, the Named Watchmaster or a Corvus Blackstar as none of those 3 are a "Deathwatch Killteam" per the rules.

 

Corvus is a Retinue unit and not a Requisition because it's not a Dedicated Transport and it's not Native to a non-Imperial Agents Codex.

The Sisters of Battle and the Grey Knights Terminators are Requisition units because both of those have a home Codex already.

The Corvus Blackstar's home Coxex is the IA codex, and since it can't just ignore the chart entirely as it isn't a dedicated Transport it therefore must be a Retinue unit to allow it to be taken at all.

 

The "Simple Fix" to your Simple Fix would be:

"Deathwatch units may be included in a Space Marines Detachment. Taken in this way, they lose the Ordo Xenos and Battleline keywords, and gain the keyword Adeptus Astartes. If a Space Marines detachment includes any Deathwatch units, no Deathwatch units may also be included in the army via the Assigned Agents rule."

 

Since all the Deathwatch Models are still keyworded as "Deathwatch" due to the Ordo Xenos Detachment just being Blackspear with a different coat of paint, if you make that Keyword the one you can use you automatically allow the Watchmaster, Named Watchmaster and the Corvus Blackstar along with the Deathwatch Killteams, plus any hypothetical future Deathwatch units GW throw into the codex via a Warhammer Quest/BSF or Killteam release.

Edited August 12 by Indy Techwisp

[ThePenitentOne]

Thanks Indy- you wrote the houserule for me.

 

If GW doesn't fix it via errata, I'm cutting and pasting your rule. 

 

Also, add to the generic Inquisitor card:

 

"If this unit is Included in a detachment of Ordo Hereticus, Ordo Malleus or Ordo Xenos, it gains that detachment's <Ordo> Keyword."

 

This really should be a no brainer. Interestingly enough, there may be a Crusade Upgrade that lets an Inquisitor either gain membership in an Ordo or switch. I wonder if there are Crusade based rules that lean into the Puritan vs. Radical spectrum.

 

 

[Dr. Clock]

@Indy Techwisp I'd love to see Watchmaster and Corvus also integrated to Marines in that way - my fix admittedly would have kept them as Assigned Agents only.

 

I accept your rationale on the dedicated transport thing as well, just that Corvus being Retinue is... bad and anti-fun.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

The Crusade rules are up on Goonhammer and they are excellent.

 

I'll drop by later to talk more about this- posting from work so time is tight.

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/codex-imperial-agents-10th-edition-the-crusade-rules-review/

[ThePenitentOne]

Okay, sorry about the double post, but I did that so that the thread would show up again- in my experience, when I go back and edit, it doesn't do that. After reading the rview posted above, the Crusade rules for the Agents dex looks pretty sweet. Here's some of my favourite details from the Goonhammer review:

 

To be Used in Combination with Host Army Crusade Content!

 

So yes, this is one of the big things I was hoping to see. Because rosters in Crusade are organized by Superfaction (ie. Imperium, Chaos, Xenos/ Other), it is possible to have Sisters and Agents on a roster, which would allow you to construct a Sisters force, an Agents Force, or a blended army. So yes, a unit of Sisters can choose battle honours from the Sisters dex or the Agents dex. This will allow certain units to develop into really interesting Legendary units over time. But it's beyond that: 

 

You're a Priest, and since your childhood, you've had visions of the Emperor's Grace. You were a Ministorum Prodigy, a Firebrand, declared a candidate for Sainthood. In every battle, you take upon yourself the Holy Trials, leading your unit into battle in the Emperor's name. And then one day, a Mysterious Stranger arrives- an Inquisitor, bringing news of impending peril, and he requisitions you for service in the Emperor's name: Gone is your flock of Faithful who manifest the will of the Emperor through battlefield miracles, and gone are the Holy Trials. While in the service of the Inquisition, one is tasked to seek and eliminate the threat.

 

Or you're part of a unit of Sisters in service of the Inquisition, and in a particularly dangerous mission, your unit succumbed to fear. You must now take upon yourselves the vows of the Penitent- cast from the service of the Inquisition back to your sisters, now tasked with administering your atonement.

 

Inquisitorial Mandate

 

This is a requisition that allows you to take an extra agenda. It's critical because of the combined dex approach. In the first example above, the Priest unit needs to score an Agenda to advance their Sainthood, but they also need to complete Agendas to deal with a threat. This requisition makes it easier to pursue both of those conflicting goals. This is especially valuable in small games where you only get one Agenda to pursue. 

 

The Radical/ Puritan Spectrum is Addressed in the Crusade Rules

 

While it isn't a huge mechanic, there is a Vermillion level Asset that is only available to Radicals, and another that is only available to Puritans, and of course there are battle honours which can brand an Inquisitor as one or the other in order to qualify the character. Vermillion level Assets are what you get for completing Shadow Operations- ie. all three threats that make up a Shadow Operation, so they're a big deal and it was nice to create one for each end of the spectrum, while all of the others will fall somewhere in the middle.

 

Only One Vermillion Level Asset can be Active

 

This is a nice touch; it allows Vermillion level Assets to be as meaningful as they should be without steamrolling folks under the weight of accumulated buffs... I mean, not any more than is normal for Crusade. It also forces the player to make choices that impact the game. Finally, like relics can suggest conversions, some Vermillion level Assets suggest roster-wide organizational stuctures or other assets that are great drivers of campaign-level narrative.

 

You can Increase the Number of Assigned Agents you can Bring!

 

There is a Vermillion level Asset that allows to increase every category of Agent you can bring by one, so that's an extra Character, an extra Retinue unit and an extra Requisitioned unit. That is a big deal, but being a Vermillion Level Asset there's a considerable cost to earn it, and an opportunity cost to keep it active. What I particularly like about it is the way at enhances games at the extreme ends of the size scale: in a 500-1k game, this allows to field a split force that feels like more of an Inquisition force than one belonging exclusively to the host faction; in a 3K game, it prevents the Agent element from being completely dwarfed by the host faction. It feels like the assigned Agents you're bringing might actually be whole allied army... and it might actually be.

 

Final Thoughts

 

Like all Crusade content, this stuff is all about how you combine it and connect it to your narrative, fusing specific missions to particular threats or Agendas and connecting all of that to the campaign narrative... That's the work that GW leaves to us. But this book suggests a wealth of possibilities for doing that. An Inquisitorial mandate is an excellent narrative hook; these sorts of forces are meant to pull Imperial factions together, and they tend to do so in order to combat equally powerful existential threats. The book was always going to be a must-have for me, warts and all. But I can rest assured that Crusade at least came through for me.

[Scribe]

 

Look, ALL units in the game are supposed to be balanced for use with access to strats.

 

lol

[Tokugawa]

MFM updated.

[HeadlessCross]

Holy cow the ally tax is a joke like I predicted. I'd MAYBE only take Subductors for the regular units. Meanwhile they make the Vindicare 150 points which makes it look like GW playtested it in one game against a Guard player that doesn't understand what being out of LoS is and decided he was too broken. 

[TrawlingCleaner]

The Vindicare being 150 is still a must pick for a lot of armies to be honest, especially now they're even better 

[HeadlessCross]

 

The Vindicare being 150 is still a must pick for a lot of armies to be honest, especially now they're even better 

In what world is the Vindicare an autopick for 150 points?

[Dr. Clock]

Yeah... points certainly seem arbitrary in terms of where premiums are applied.

 

Like - where is the 30 pt premium for rogue trader coming from? 75 > 105 pts is a heck of a swing... or a 40% premium... why exactly? Then another 20pt premium to field them with the voidsmen? But Deathwatch, breachers and arbites are all just the same price?

 

I do like that the main infantry units got cheaper in general though...

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[ThePenitentOne]

Came across this rumoured Leak on Dakka; these are *supposedly* WH+ models for the year. Don't know how credible that is.

[Indy Techwisp]

 

Came across this rumoured Leak on Dakka; these are *supposedly* WH+ models for the year. Don't know how credible that is.

 

According to the following Warhammer Community article, I'd say extremely credible:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/08/21/new-warhammer-miniatures-subscribe-to-choose-from-two-incredible-new-models/

[Minsc]

Vindicare going from 110 -> 150 pts as an Ally while the Callidus stays at 100 pts regardless. Ahh, GW being consistent as always...
 

(And the Vindicare being 150 pts in itself would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. It's hilariously overpriced, and I 100% expect it to go down in cost in the next update. People who think its OP simply because it ignores LO need to pause, do some math and realize how little impact a Vindicare will have over the course of a game - especially with all LoS-blocking terrain there is in 10th taken into account.)

Honestly, this whole "codex" might very well be one of the biggest L's GW has ever made ruleswise...

 

Edited August 21 by Minsc

[sairence]

 

The Vindicare being 150 is still a must pick for a lot of armies to be honest, especially now they're even better 

We go through this every time the Vindicare gets an update. Some zcary looking rule, that's gets people all hot and bothered but in practise never pans put. 

 

He might be taken at 110 in Agents armies with the buffs, but at 150 Imperium armies will likely just leave him at home. Realistically, he wasn't taken at 75 with fairly similar rules and he certainly wasn't buffed to be twice as deadly.