Is a leader a "unit"?

[Schoenwulf]

In Scenario 16 from AAaD, VP's are awarded to American units exiting the map. In the 4th Ed. rules a leader is described as follows: "Individuals who activate and direct other units". This seems to imply that leaders are one-step units because of the "other" reference, and the differing definition for personnel units later in the definitions section. Is that a correct interpretation of the status of leaders with regards to steps, and in this case, VP's?

[plloyd1010]

No, leaders are not units.

[Shad]

See 2.4 Game Scale
Each turn represents fifteen minutes of real time. Each hex is 200 meters (200m) across. Units represent infantry platoons (15-40 men), crew-served weapon batteries and platoons (16-28 men and two to four weapons) and vehicle platoons (three to five vehicles). Leaders represent individuals, and aircraft represent 3 to 12 aircraft.

Units are defined separately from leaders.

[Schoenwulf]

See 2.4 Game Scale
Each turn represents fifteen minutes of real time. Each hex is 200 meters (200m) across. Units represent infantry platoons (15-40 men), crew-served weapon batteries and platoons (16-28 men and two to four weapons) and vehicle platoons (three to five vehicles). Leaders represent individuals, and aircraft represent 3 to 12 aircraft.

Units are defined separately from leaders.

Thanks to both of you. Now, I can get an AAR written up for this scenario...sort of figured that they weren't, and have always considered them not to be. But reading that "other" units would be directed, I began to wonder.......

[Poor Yorek]

The rules language is not entirely consistent.  For example, (9.0) Active units with Bombardment Fire values may attack hexes containing spotted enemy units within range. All enemy units in the target hex are affected. Presumably, the use of "units" here is not intended to exclude leaders in the hex being affected.  Note that (14.1) makes the distinction: When a combat result requires a morale check, the owning player rolls two dice for each affected unit and/or leader and adds any applicable modifier to the result. 

Leaders share many of the same capabilities and vulnerabilities of "units" and yet are also clearly distinct in many ways.  Perhaps what ought to have been done is to define a term that would apply when referring to common features (movement; morale; etc.) and have other terms that are used when making distinctions (e.g. a leader cannot "control" a hex or doesn't count as a unit exited) just as, for example, the unit category is divided up into combat and transport.  

Lest anyone have a spittle-flecked-nutty, I'm simply pointing out the potential ambiguity with rules sets where terms that have both a definitional meaning and a more common-speak meaning become conflated.

[Shad]

I agree. The scope of units varies and I think that's due to editing rather than intention. Perhaps the easiest revision would be to use leader units (LUs) and non-leader units (NLUs).

[t1M0t8yk]

Is a leader alone in a hex spotted in the same way as non-leader units (to use Shad's term)?  This is important for opportunity fire and bombardment fire.  Does a moving leader enable potential opportunity fire?  Can a leader spot for artillery and mortars without being spotted?

[plloyd1010]

Yes to all. Keep in mind that since a leader is not a unit, he is not subject to the +1 opfire modifier against personnel units moving.

[Hugmenot]

The rules language is not entirely consistent.  For example, (9.0) Active units with Bombardment Fire values may attack hexes containing spotted enemy units within range. All enemy units in the target hex are affected. Presumably, the use of "units" here is not intended to exclude leaders in the hex being affected.  Note that (14.1) makes the distinction: When a combat result requires a morale check, the owning player rolls two dice for each affected unit and/or leader and adds any applicable modifier to the result. 

Leaders share many of the same capabilities and vulnerabilities of "units" and yet are also clearly distinct in many ways.  Perhaps what ought to have been done is to define a term that would apply when referring to common features (movement; morale; etc.) and have other terms that are used when making distinctions (e.g. a leader cannot "control" a hex or doesn't count as a unit exited) just as, for example, the unit category is divided up into combat and transport.  

Lest anyone have a spittle-flecked-nutty, I'm simply pointing out the potential ambiguity with rules sets where terms that have both a definitional meaning and a more common-speak meaning become conflated.

I agree with you 100% that the rules language is not entirely consistent. It's one of the things I wanted to fix.

[saracv3]

I have faith that the 5th rules edition will be more consistent on this issue. Peter has a rough draft. I have seen it but will have to look for it. It can be seen on Peter’s website.