(03-01-2014, 03:12 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: Alan,
Well, tell it to Doug. I merely quoted (and tried to infer a rationale for) his application of the matter since your definition of self-spotting is at odds with Doug's use of the term in the cited AAR. Of course, his casual use in an AAR is not the same thing as speaking ex cathedra.
Given the likely frequency that this occurs, however, perhaps someone with contacts at APL might suggest a definitive clarification of this matter vis-a-vis the 4th Ed rules (if not already done).
Quote:As long as it is not "Vertigo enhanced observer" you'll do just fine
Hrmm, does this get the +3 col shift for a proximity fuse? Splatter damage? ewww
Zaarin7: Regarding leaders, the game leader counters obviously don't count actual officers, but, in game terms, represent game-effective leadership (albeit at times the counters do represent an individual). Put another way, they're the officers (or NCO's) that "matter" in game terms. So an artillery battery unit without a leader counter isn't suggesting that there isn't an LT probably "there," but in game-effective terms, that unit functions differently than one that does have an accompanying leader. I gather than Vince and I agree that a "leaderless" artillery or mortar unit can spot from the enhanced elevation of trees/buildings if in such a hex, but there is a difference of opinion regarding whether that constitutes "self-spotting" from the pov of gaining the +1 col shift. My point was that Doug's AAR seems to suggest that is the case, but it is not clear whether that is canonical.
Like everything with PG is it left up to us to ponder.
