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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.

Why are we congratulating people for getting buffed and being the new broken army I don't get that.

Were people going around slapping eldar player on the back when their previous codex came out, telling them they did good? Did we throw a party for Tau when the riptide was first being introduced, to celebrate the occasion?

I didn't really want to be congratulated for that broken skitarii/admech convocation with the absurd number of free points in it. I actually wanted to ignore its existence when possible.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.

Indeed.

My 9y/o nephew's army-- currently consisting of four or five guard squads with flamers, a heavy weapons squad, a commander, a command punisher, and a couple plasma armored sentinels-- became much more fun for him to play, and once I get the book and walk him through it he'll be really excited about the changes.

Sorry, the command squad rule is just a limit of one per <Regiment> Officer, not per detachment. I misunderstood what one of the preview videos was saying.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.

Why are we congratulating people for getting buffed and being the new broken army I don't get that.

Were people going around slapping eldar player on the back when their previous codex came out, telling them they did good? Did we throw a party for Tau when the riptide was first being introduced, to celebrate the occasion?

I didn't really want to be congratulated for that broken skitarii/admech convocation with the absurd number of free points in it. I actually wanted to ignore its existence when possible.

There are other threads for perceived balance concerns, this one isn't supposed to be about that.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Sorry, the command squad rule is just a limit of one per <Regiment> Officer, not per detachment. I misunderstood what one of the preview videos was saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's a little disappointing that they did not limit command squads more.

By [Regiment] officer, is that the HQ choice, or does it also include the elite choice?

 Melissia wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Sorry, the command squad rule is just a limit of one per <Regiment> Officer, not per detachment. I misunderstood what one of the preview videos was saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's a little disappointing that they did not limit command squads more.

By [Regiment] officer, is that the HQ choice, or does it also include the elite choice?

It include anyone with the OFFICER keyword regardless of slot, I assume platoon commanders are OFFICERs so each one would unlock another command squad.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
There are other threads for perceived balance concerns, this one isn't supposed to be about that.

I'm just trying to figure out why on earth people are actively cheering about a broken book. I mean, I get why the more WAAC minded IG players might be happy, but frankly making an entire thread to gloat is a little tacky, and people cheering for it baffle me. I suppose most could simply play armies that have not had a codex yet and are hoping they also get put on guard level, if not higher, but still seems a bit short sighted to me.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
It include anyone with the OFFICER keyword regardless of slot, I assume platoon commanders are OFFICERs so each one would unlock another command squad.

Huh. Wonder if that also includes Commissars... taht would be unfortunate.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.

Why are we congratulating people for getting buffed and being the new broken army I don't get that.

Were people going around slapping eldar player on the back when their previous codex came out, telling them they did good? Did we throw a party for Tau when the riptide was first being introduced, to celebrate the occasion?

I didn't really want to be congratulated for that broken skitarii/admech convocation with the absurd number of free points in it. I actually wanted to ignore its existence when possible.

If you are saying that, you totally don't understand why this Codex, ignoring balance issues, is great. You only see it from a pure external balance-competitive perspective, like Marmatag sees the game. It is not a objetively wrong way to see the game, but it is not the one we are talking about here.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
There are other threads for perceived balance concerns, this one isn't supposed to be about that.

I'm just trying to figure out why on earth people are actively cheering about a broken book. I mean, I get why the more WAAC minded IG players might be happy, but frankly making an entire thread to gloat is a little tacky, and people cheering for it baffle me. I suppose most could simply play armies that have not had a codex yet and are hoping they also get put on guard level, if not higher, but still seems a bit short sighted to me.

Not to derail this topic, but whether or not the book is broken, relative to the other, unreleased codexes, remains to be seen. You are assuming it is broken when it isn't even out yet and has not been tested by the vast majority of players. Not everyone shares that assumption. Even if we grant that some things are OP in the book, that still wouldn't take away from how good/fun/flavourful the rules are. But lets leave the balance discussions to another thread.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Sorry, the command squad rule is just a limit of one per <Regiment> Officer, not per detachment. I misunderstood what one of the preview videos was saying.

No worries! I was just taken aback since nobody had mentioned that in other discussions.

Huh. Wonder if that also includes Commissars... taht would be unfortunate.

They were not in the index, so I doubt that has changed.

Nothing made me happier than seeing the kitbashed and recolors getting thier page in the codex. The fluff has so many varied and crazily different regiments that it was nice to get reminded of what drew me to the faction in the first place - the modding possibilities.

It is nice how many different viable options the codex seems to have, including some fun/oddball builds. I definitely hope that it's a sign of GW moving away from monobuild codices.

On the Command Squad things, isn't it the same rule we already have in the FAQ? It's not a new thing:

Page 10 – Astra Militarum Army List
Add the following rule:
‘Matched Play – Command Squads
If you are playing a matched play game, a Battle-forged
army can include a maximum of one <Regiment>
Command Squad (pg 15) in a Detachment for each
<Regiment> Officer in that Detachment. Similarly,
if you are playing a matched play game, a Battleforged
army can include a maximum of one Militarum
Tempestus Command Squad (pg 51) in a Detachment
for each Tempestor Prime (pg 50) in that Detachment.’

 Melissia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The book looks super fun. Congrats to all those who have had Guard armies sitting on shelves and holding out.

Indeed.

My 9y/o nephew's army-- currently consisting of four or five guard squads with flamers, a heavy weapons squad, a commander, a command punisher, and a couple plasma armored sentinels-- became much more fun for him to play, and once I get the book and walk him through it he'll be really excited about the changes.

D'aawwww. Adorable.

Nice to know at least some people play for fun

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Nothing made me happier than seeing the kitbashed and recolors getting thier page in the codex. The fluff has so many varied and crazily different regiments that it was nice to get reminded of what drew me to the faction in the first place - the modding possibilities.

I definitely made some undignified happy sounds when I saw those posted on Warhammer Community.

This sounds terribly exciting, looking forward to grabbing the codex.
Usually first thing I do is look to see what is the most OP/broken thing I can do with it, so I will not have any later surprises.
This then usually makes me very aware of the choices to be made that would lend the Codex well to "fluff" choices.
It really boils down to: do they play like guard still or do only a few key models stand out.
Glad I got magnets on my Sentinels and heavy weapon squads.
On a "dare" I had put together and painted 100 plain old Cadian grunts (lasgun guys, not including Sgts). around November last year.
Now we shall see how much use they get.

Nice. I'm really looking forward to getting my copy. The variation, thematic rules and various options make it a good time to be a GW customer. I've enjoyed reading and list building with all of the 8th edition codexes so far. Hopefully it continues.

 Galas wrote:
If you are saying that, you totally don't understand why this Codex, ignoring balance issues, is great. You only see it from a pure external balance-competitive perspective, like Marmatag sees the game. It is not a objetively wrong way to see the game, but it is not the one we are talking about here.

Okay, so I'm about to be a grump again, but this is my actual opinion I'm not just trying to ruin people's fun. I'm not sure that's what people are happy about, and if they are I think that's a lot to do with the low standards GW has set for guard having interesting options. From a fluff perspective I'm actually not sure what people are raving about. For example the fluffiest doctrine I saw was catachan which did a decent job at least reminding people of the old codex. Even then I see wasted opportunities, ways the could've made it a bit fluffier.

The rest are, while functional, honestly not that flavorful imo. I suppose Valhalla is probably the fluffiest I saw of the remaining, the tank portion is weird but in a fun way. But the rest are well... eh. Even cadia is pretty much a step down from where it was post formation last edition, in terms of uniqueness.

The biggest issue I saw, from a fluff perspective, is the continued refusal to give certain options, mainly the ability to give any noticeable non weapon upgrades on a unit to unit basis. I see the logic behind some changes, infiltration is now a stratagem rather than unit upgrade (do guard even have get an infiltration stratagem?) but others not so much. Veterans did a lot to allow a fluffy force last edition, and they remain gutted. To give a more specific example, take Vostroyan. Do the rules really do a better job representing them than a player could've done with veteran squads last edition? This honestly applies to a lot of the regiments, they still all look to play very similarly in practice. Honestly I think my enjoyment of catachan is based on how their rules and characters lend themselves to creating something actually unique to the

Maybe I've been spoiled by FW, but I look at something like the HH militia and cults, or where R&H was last edition, or even what FW was doing to characterize their unique armies this edition, and I can't say I feel all that impressed. If the Elysian army was in this book, they'd have a stratagem to deepstrike, a bonus for shooting in 12" or something, and that'd be it. It's certainly no 4th edition codex.

I can see praising it for internal balance, but that is pretty much the only area I see it as being particularly exceptional. Even in terms of fun and being an enjoyable army, I've noticed the stratagems look a little dull, and those have general been the more enjoyable and engaging parts of the previous codices I found. Possibly orders more than compensates for that, but again I only saw a couple interesting stand outs.

So yeah, just my two cents as someone who doesn't play guard but does play HH militia and R&H, I don't see this living up to the promise those armies had.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

gungo wrote:
egh 3rd edition had cool units like catachan devils,sniper squads, last chancers, marbo and a ton of special characters and several different artillery units that are just gone. Not to mention It was the heyday of guard with 7 armies in full support and production. (catachan, cadian, steel legion, mordian, vostroyan, valhallan, tallarn (both gw and fw), praetorian (now defunct). This doesn't include DKOK which were new. I started at the end of 2nd beginning of 3rd with a brand new steel legion battle force boxset.

While I appreciate finally getting doctrines back and the boost to certain poor units. a lot of units feel very much the same thing. grenade launchers are still gak, plasma is the new melta, and melta is the old plasma in terms of usefulness. special weapon squads, veteran squads, scions, and to a much lesser degree infantry squads are all slight variances of the same thing. mech guard is ok at best and there is still a clear winner in infantry spam being king, even with leman Russ tank companies blowing up local metas.

I think people are just happy to get doctrines back and the ability to slightly customize their army again. Which is good but balance is bad (mostly externally), but internally there are ALOT of clear winners and losers. Sadly our codex will be judged on the clear winners (OP units like conscripts and scions) and not losers (horrible units such as deathstrike, vanquishers, Valkyries, hydras, etc)

I really don't know if Scions and conscripts are still the be all and end all. Sure, in certain list types they are still good, but why do I need conscripts if my heavy hitting valuable tanks are all outflanking, for example? Or are Scion plasma guns really optimal now that they cost 14 points per gun compared to 7 points on a BS4+ model and command squads are limited to 1 per regimental detachement? Do I need them if I can outflank plasma veterans via relic? Are special weapon squads, with 7 point plasma guns, a more efficient way to get plasma weapons now that BS3+ models have 14 point plasma guns? Are BS3+ models better served with meltaguns now that the point cost difference between them and plasma guns is much reduced? I'm not looking for answers to these questions, but these are the sorts of questions this codex is forcing us to ask, which is great. I don't think Scions + Conscripts + Artillery is clearly the best build anymore.

Take scions in a separate detachment add sabre searchlight deep strike in rapid fire range use the new order that reroll wounds
Now you have a bs3 model with +1 to hit and reroll to wound vs monsters and vehicles and a 33% chance to triple fire plasma.
It's significantly more powerful then trying to outflank 3 sws units using tallarn strategem.
Nah hammer still shows scions are doing fine even with the 50% chance at orders (w/o reroll) they gained a lot via doctrines etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Would you guys say that, in terms of rules without points, this codex is exactly where it needs to be? Meaning that, going forward with 8th edition, GW only really needs to tweak point costs of units and weapons rather than actually change up and add rules to this book?

Not the deathstrike it will continue to be useless and unreliable if the best you get is a 4+ chance to fire on turn 4 or later when the game is basically over.

has there been any change to the scions deepstriking ability?

how about the points cost on plasma and qty for scions, any change?

SilverAlien wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you are saying that, you totally don't understand why this Codex, ignoring balance issues, is great. You only see it from a pure external balance-competitive perspective, like Marmatag sees the game. It is not a objetively wrong way to see the game, but it is not the one we are talking about here.

Okay, so I'm about to be a grump again, but this is my actual opinion I'm not just trying to ruin people's fun. I'm not sure that's what people are happy about, and if they are I think that's a lot to do with the low standards GW has set for guard having interesting options. From a fluff perspective I'm actually not sure what people are raving about. For example the fluffiest doctrine I saw was catachan which did a decent job at least reminding people of the old codex. Even then I see wasted opportunities, ways the could've made it a bit fluffier.

The rest are, while functional, honestly not that flavorful imo. I suppose Valhalla is probably the fluffiest I saw of the remaining, the tank portion is weird but in a fun way. But the rest are well... eh. Even cadia is pretty much a step down from where it was post formation last edition, in terms of uniqueness.

The biggest issue I saw, from a fluff perspective, is the continued refusal to give certain options, mainly the ability to give any noticeable non weapon upgrades on a unit to unit basis. I see the logic behind some changes, infiltration is now a stratagem rather than unit upgrade (do guard even have get an infiltration stratagem?) but others not so much. Veterans did a lot to allow a fluffy force last edition, and they remain gutted. To give a more specific example, take Vostroyan. Do the rules really do a better job representing them than a player could've done with veteran squads last edition? This honestly applies to a lot of the regiments, they still all look to play very similarly in practice. Honestly I think my enjoyment of catachan is based on how their rules and characters lend themselves to creating something actually unique to the

Maybe I've been spoiled by FW, but I look at something like the HH militia and cults, or where R&H was last edition, or even what FW was doing to characterize their unique armies this edition, and I can't say I feel all that impressed. If the Elysian army was in this book, they'd have a stratagem to deepstrike, a bonus for shooting in 12" or something, and that'd be it. It's certainly no 4th edition codex.

I can see praising it for internal balance, but that is pretty much the only area I see it as being particularly exceptional. Even in terms of fun and being an enjoyable army, I've noticed the stratagems look a little dull, and those have general been the more enjoyable and engaging parts of the previous codices I found. Possibly orders more than compensates for that, but again I only saw a couple interesting stand outs.

So yeah, just my two cents as someone who doesn't play guard but does play HH militia and R&H, I don't see this living up to the promise those armies had.

Ok. All of this is reasonable criticism and more in the tone of this thread. I can agree with many things you said, like Veterans. Personally, at this point I think veterans should be merged with Tempestus and their options merged too, with the option to take cheaper Scions without deepstrike.

Plasmagun is reportedly 14ppm
It's a minor bump for a unit that was made to be a low model count suicide glass cannon regardless. The fact they like Elysian drop squads (with misprinted 3dam plasmaguns) are spammed have more to do with thier ability to drop in ideal range without retaliation and light up high priority targets with as much multi damage weapons as possible this is something even a vet squad with a tallarn strategem to infiltrate can't do since it's limited to 7in board edge and 9in away from opposing units.

Scions aren't going anywhere they are the best imperial option at doing this and have only gotten better with thier doctrine and now being an infantry regiment.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
has there been any change to the scions deepstriking ability?

how about the points cost on plasma and qty for scions, any change?

Haven't seen the online breakdown but according to people, Scions did get a points increase on plasma guns but still retain their deepstrike ability.

 Galas wrote:
Ok. All of this is reasonable criticism and more in the tone of this thread. I can agree with many things you said, like Veterans. Personally, at this point I think veterans should be merged with Tempestus and their options merged too, with the option to take cheaper Scions without deepstrike.

Yeah, frankly I was just assuming people were already on the same thread so I assumed the praise was being directed at... other areas. Which is why I should read threads more closely and not just assume things.

Honestly, unless they plan to bring back more unique units for regiments, I'd want the veterans to stay as a way to show off what makes the army unique. Melee warriors, sneaky reconnaissance experts, expert marksmen, demolitions experts, chemically/cybernetically boosted soldiers, or even just particularly well equipped line troopers.

But for some reason GW isn't really on board with that. Which is a shame, I think guard of all armies should have something like this to represent its sheer variety.

 Galas wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you are saying that, you totally don't understand why this Codex, ignoring balance issues, is great. You only see it from a pure external balance-competitive perspective, like Marmatag sees the game. It is not a objetively wrong way to see the game, but it is not the one we are talking about here.

Okay, so I'm about to be a grump again, but this is my actual opinion I'm not just trying to ruin people's fun. I'm not sure that's what people are happy about, and if they are I think that's a lot to do with the low standards GW has set for guard having interesting options. From a fluff perspective I'm actually not sure what people are raving about. For example the fluffiest doctrine I saw was catachan which did a decent job at least reminding people of the old codex. Even then I see wasted opportunities, ways the could've made it a bit fluffier.

The rest are, while functional, honestly not that flavorful imo. I suppose Valhalla is probably the fluffiest I saw of the remaining, the tank portion is weird but in a fun way. But the rest are well... eh. Even cadia is pretty much a step down from where it was post formation last edition, in terms of uniqueness.

The biggest issue I saw, from a fluff perspective, is the continued refusal to give certain options, mainly the ability to give any noticeable non weapon upgrades on a unit to unit basis. I see the logic behind some changes, infiltration is now a stratagem rather than unit upgrade (do guard even have get an infiltration stratagem?) but others not so much. Veterans did a lot to allow a fluffy force last edition, and they remain gutted. To give a more specific example, take Vostroyan. Do the rules really do a better job representing them than a player could've done with veteran squads last edition? This honestly applies to a lot of the regiments, they still all look to play very similarly in practice. Honestly I think my enjoyment of catachan is based on how their rules and characters lend themselves to creating something actually unique to the

Maybe I've been spoiled by FW, but I look at something like the HH militia and cults, or where R&H was last edition, or even what FW was doing to characterize their unique armies this edition, and I can't say I feel all that impressed. If the Elysian army was in this book, they'd have a stratagem to deepstrike, a bonus for shooting in 12" or something, and that'd be it. It's certainly no 4th edition codex.

I can see praising it for internal balance, but that is pretty much the only area I see it as being particularly exceptional. Even in terms of fun and being an enjoyable army, I've noticed the stratagems look a little dull, and those have general been the more enjoyable and engaging parts of the previous codices I found. Possibly orders more than compensates for that, but again I only saw a couple interesting stand outs.

So yeah, just my two cents as someone who doesn't play guard but does play HH militia and R&H, I don't see this living up to the promise those armies had.

Ok. All of this is reasonable criticism and more in the tone of this thread. I can agree with many things you said, like Veterans. Personally, at this point I think veterans should be merged with Tempestus and their options merged too, with the option to take cheaper Scions without deepstrike.

Vets have always been in a weird position ever since 5th edition rotated out since they're suppose to be Infantry squads +1.....but that's also what Scions try to be. The only difference is that in 5th edition Vets were troops, got doctrines (so actual useful rules) and were a cheap troop choice while Scions were manouverable, came with heavier armor as standard, and ignored armor. It's a less pronounced issue between Centurions and Terminators (and to a lesser extent, the existing problem with Intercessors and Tacticals). So scions ended up being Guardsmen +1 while Vets became...+0.5? But the perks to vets were systematically removed in the last codex and index (no longer a troop choice nor the cheapest choice and lost their doctrines) while scions took over the roles they once had. I kinda agree that Vets should just be rolled into Scions, since the two are basically competing for the same spot (and one is massively outclassing the other). However if Militarium Tempestus forbids people from using regiment doctrines with their troops (haven't checked yet) then this might give veterans a role, albeit still extremely narrow one (most people would probably just run a separate vanguard detachment with the scions, commissars and a tempestor prime).

Don't get me wrong, Scions are still going to be great, and a very good weapon delivery platform, but when you have to choose between paying 14 points for a BS3+ plasma gun and 7 points for a BS4+ plasma gun (BS3+ models in the codex pay 14 points for plasma now, while BS4+ retain the 7 point cost), you actually have to make a meaningful decision where you didn't before. Is it better to have more plasma guns that don't hit accurately, or fewer that do? (The actual, non codex answer is to spam Elysians now but that is a different topic).

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Mordian is just kind of a middle finger to the enemy. +1 overwatch won't do anything meaningful, it will just marginally annoy your enemy, and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback. Doubled overwatch output isn't going to be making a difference for the unit being charged, or the units they're protecting.

Until they use the +1 to overwatch stratagem and a Baneblade gets to overwatch at 4+. It won't do much against shooty armies but I pity any assault army that has to play against Mordian AM.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback.

As the Mordian's doctrine has published rule text, we know that this isn't actually the case. It says "touching the base of at least one other model". This means that it is perfectly viable to put your Mordians in b2b pairs, with 2" between each pair. I know this is not how it is intended to work, and would look silly and not something I would do. However, if that is the published wording then that is how you can play it. OF course, I would expect this to be FAQed at some point.

Otto von Bludd wrote:Don't get me wrong, Scions are still going to be great, and a very good weapon delivery platform, but when you have to choose between paying 14 points for a BS3+ plasma gun and 7 points for a BS4+ plasma gun (BS3+ models in the codex pay 14 points for plasma now, while BS4+ retain the 7 point cost), you actually have to make a meaningful decision where you didn't before. Is it better to have more plasma guns that don't hit accurately, or fewer that do? (The actual, non codex answer is to spam Elysians now but that is a different topic).

It's not the weapons, it's Deep Strike. They're still way above the efficiency line because of that.

Scions with Plasma come in at 9+13= 22 PPM.

A Sister Dominion with a Meltagun comes in at 27 PPM, and a Sternguard Veteran with a Combi-Plasma comes in at 31 PPM. Seems fair, yes?


However, even with Vanguard, the Dominions and the Sternguard need to buy a transport to pull off the equivalent of the Scions' Deep Strike. After buying our Immolator or Drop Pod, which will allow our troops to emulate the Scions' ability, we come out with 48 PPM for the Dominions and 40 PPM for the Sternguard. The Immolator can be upgraded to carry a pair of multimeltas, and if we count those it brings the cost per gun reaching the enemy Dominions down to 37 PPW, still a solid 15 points per gun more than the Scions.


Scions are still hilariously underpriced for what they bring to the table. If it were just the BS3+ underpaying for weapons that was good, then Veteran Command Squads would be everywhere because they're 3 points less per model than Scions Command Squads. Scions were definitely underpaying for their weapon options, but they're even more seriously underpaying for the Deep Strike ability.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Mordian is just kind of a middle finger to the enemy. +1 overwatch won't do anything meaningful, it will just marginally annoy your enemy, and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback. Doubled overwatch output isn't going to be making a difference for the unit being charged, or the units they're protecting.

Until they use the +1 to overwatch stratagem and a Baneblade gets to overwatch at 4+. It won't do much against shooty armies but I pity any assault army that has to play against Mordian AM.

Eh, I'm not impressed.

It's pretty much irrelevant except in the edge case. Another 3 Genestealers killed doesn't exactly make for much of a difference to the survival of the Conscripts or to the units behind them, it's just sort of a minor "take that!"

Yeah, charging a Stormlord hitting on 4's will be obnoxious, especially if supported by re-rolls, but when push comes to shove, the rest of your army would have benefited way more from being Catachan or Cadian or some such, and the Stormlord is just one unit the enemy can find another way of taking out or neutralizing.

Trickstick wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...and having to bunch up B2B is a major, major drawback.

As the Mordian's doctrine has published rule text, we know that this isn't actually the case. It says "touching the base of at least one other model". This means that it is perfectly viable to put your Mordians in b2b pairs, with 2" between each pair. I know this is not how it is intended to work, and would look silly and not something I would do. However, if that is the published wording then that is how you can play it. OF course, I would expect this to be FAQed at some point.

If it comes up, they'll FAQ it.

If we made scions as expensive per model as Sternguard in a droppod though, would people really shell out 40 points for a T3/4+ model?