Alexia3 Leadership wording seems wrong

This reads to me as “When a Friendly Undead model ends it’s activation within 10 inches of Alexia, ALL Friendly Undead models ON THE ENTIRE TABLE gain Shield Guard FOR THE REST OF THE GAME”.

The trigger is a Friendly Undead model ending it’s activation within 10", but the result is “Friendly Undead models” - plural, without any qualifiers, so basically ALL OF THEM - gain Shield Guard - again, without any qualifiers for how long they will have it, i.e. they never lose it.

I assume the intended wording is something like “When a Friendly Undead model ends it’s activation within 10” of Alexia, it gains Shield Guard for one round".

I would argue however that it would be far more player-friendly to just say “Friendly Undead models have Shield Guard while within 10” of Alexia". I say this for several reasons:

  1. This avoids annoying order-of-activation issues, like an Undead model activating to move forwards, ending outside of 10" of Alexia, then she activates and moves within 10" of him but he doesn’t get shield guard. This is annoying; you’re being punished for activating in an intuitive and possibly necessary way (models that are further forwards advance first), for no reason.
  2. This means you don’t need to try to track the Shield Guard status of every Undead model, you only need to check it when it’s relevant. Imagine running three units of Legion of Lost Souls, along with a smattering of Undead solos and some created Thralls, and you need to remember where each one ended it’s activation in relation to Alexia last turn. For what? Just let it be an aura and make life easier.
  3. That’s how Power of Death already works, why have two different buffs from the same model that affect the same types of models work in two VERY different ways? Just make life easier for us please.

Checking for how it should function

1 Like

If possible can you pass on my reasons for why I think it should be an aura like Power Of Death please?

Yeah. Looks like the rule should start from the word “While”, and it would make all the sense in the world. Makes me wonder if there’s a copy-paste error in the first sentence.

1 Like

The way this should have been phrased:
“When another friendly Undead model ends its activation while within 10” of this model, an affected model gains Shield Guard.

Making reference to “friendly Undead models” only introduces confusion, since the first part of the sentence already clarified the scope of what sort of models were affected.

You’re giving away my Adepticon strats man :sweat_smile:

I believe “affected model” is usually used to tack on a second effect after a first one has already been defined. For example K2D2’s feat:

As you can see the first effect on his cohort models (+2SPD) does not need “affected models” since no models have been affected by anything yet. The second effect (+1 focus) is specified using “affected models” since now we have models that have already had an effect applied (grammatically, rather than chronologically, if that makes sense).

For Alexia2, I think simply saying “When another friendly Undead model ends its activation while within 10” of this model, IT gains Shield Guard" is enough to clearly define what is happening.

Also, that alone doesn’t solve the issue of an undefined effect duration. Therefore “… it gains Shield Guard for one round would seem to be the intended effect.

I still think it would be much easier and less frustrating to use as an aura, so no faffing about with distances at the end of a model’s activation or tracking which models have it and which don’t, you would just check the distance when you want to shield-guard.

Of course this would allow a Thrall that is created during your opponent’s turn to immediately shield-guard a shot, but it kinda makes sense to me that it should work that way.

… And on an unrelated note, now that I’m reading K2D2’s feat again, I’m wondering if the “gains +1 Focus” works on K2D2 himself, since he has been “affected” by the feat?

As stated we are looking into this


The rule should read “while within”


Cool, thanks for sorting it out!