A10.72 MANDATORY LEADERSHIP and Close Combat

[Steve E7]

I have a 6+1 leader. If he chooses to combine with a friendly MMC in a CC against the enemy, is the CC DR modified by his +1 leadership modifier?

 

[jrv]

Per A10.72 leadership may be excluded.

JR

 

[Russ Isaia]

Per A10.72 leadership may be excluded.

JR

A10.72, last sentence, states you can "exclude leader direction" from fire attacks, but I wonder: can I combine a 6+1 with a squad (as the original post posits), and still say I am "exlud[ing] leader direction?"

Or are you just saying you can ignore the +1 leadership modifier, but only if you are willing to leave the leader to suffer his (richly deserved) fate alone?

 

[clubby]

This makes me think you can opt not to use leader direction.

However, a player can always opt to exclude leader direction in any attack it makes [EXC: Armor Leader (D3.45); Leader Creation (18.12); MG Mandatory Fire Direction (9.4)].

 

[Eagle4ty]

This makes me think you can opt not to use leader direction.

For Green troops this is a common tactic as they are no longer treated as inexperienced when simply stacked with a leader. However, I do not think you could say the unit was directed by a leader to gain the bonus with troops to prohibit cowering but yet not apply his leadership modifier.

 

[clubby]

Now I'm also wondering if "opt to exclude leader direction" means the same thing as attack in CC with a leader yet opt not to use his leadership modifier.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Now I'm also wondering if "opt to exclude leader direction" means the same thing as attack in CC with a leader yet opt not to use his leadership modifier.

Not really, the leader by itself has a CCV of 2 (1 if attacking in conjunction with another unit) but it doesn't have to apply his fire direction, just his CCV FP (he's simply one of the guys along for the fun).

 

[Robin Reeve]

Not really, the leader by itself has a CCV of 2 (1 if attacking in conjunction with another unit) but it doesn't have to apply his fire direction, just his CCV FP (he's simply one of the guys along for the fun).

Against infantry a leader has 1 FP

A11.14 SMC: Any SMC in CC has an inherent FP attack and defense strength of one. A SMC may attack alone, but if it does, it must also defend alone and if occupying a Location with other friendly Personnel it must announce its solo attack status (although not necessarily the unit it will attack) before the opponent designates his attacks

It indeed has a CCV of 2 alone vs a vehicle, or is a +1 to an MMC he is attacking a vehicle with (A11.5).

 

[Eagle4ty]

Against infantry a leader has 1 FP

It indeed has a CCV of 2 alone vs a vehicle, or is a +1 to an MMC he is attacking a vehicle with (A11.5).

Yup, thanks for the "vs infantry" note, guess I just assumed he was well aware of that or maybe I just forgot about it, but yes the same mechanic would apply vs infantry as well.

 

[Vinnie]

I think you can exclude his modifier unless he is generated in the attack. But if he is generated, you rolled a 2 so the chances are it's not going to matter.

 

[Binchois]

I've been thinking about this thread as I had the opposite view of what seems to be the consensus here. I hadn't considered this a problem before...

In short, I think this thread may be conflating the concept of a Leadership DRM vs. the idea of a leader directing fire (or "directing" CC). Despite A10.72 (see below), I really don't think a leadership DRM can be refused whether that leader is directing fire, participating in CC, or rallying units.

To start with A10.72, I don't think it is saying that a leader could "direct fire" of an IFT attack yet not apply his DRM (as in to avoid the 6+1 DRM while also avoiding cowering results):

10.72 MANDATORY LEADERSHIP: A player cannot decline use of a non-zero (whether positive or negative) leadership modifier in the same Location or moving stack when performing a MC/TC or Rally attempt or Ambush, Concealment, Search Casualties, or Integrity Check dr/DR unless there is another leader present in the Location or moving stack whose leadership modifier he can substitute. However, a player can always opt to exclude leader direction in any attack it makes [EXC: Armor Leader (D3.45); Leader Creation (18.12); MG Mandatory Fire Direction (9.4)].​

While most of the paragraph refers to a Leadership DRM, the last sentence is saying is that a leader doesn't have to direct fire if he doesn't want to. It does not say that a player can refuse leadership DRM when that leader directs fire.

As for CC, this distinction seems to be explicitly drawn under A11.141:

11.141 LEADER: One leader may direct the CC attack of the unit(s) it defends with (and any other units which join them in a combined CC attack) by applying his leadership DRM to the CC DR, in addition to adding his inherent FP (or increasing the CCV; see 11.5) to the strength of the attack.

Is seems to be explaining (clearly, I think) how a leader "directs" a CC attack: specifically by applying his DRM in addition to its extra 1 FP factor or increased CCV). The RB doesn't give an either/or option here. In other words, while you may choose not to include a leader in your MMC's attack, your guys will have to obey his stupid orders if you do!

Elsewhere, I admit, the RB uses the word "may" when referring to Leadership DRM, given some credence to the idea that such DRM are "optional." However, one could explain this as lack of specificity on the writers/editors part. For example, A7.53:

A7.53...A leader may use his leadership DRM (10.7) to modify the IFT DR of any one attacking unit or FG per Player Turn, provided all firing units of the FG are in the same Location.​

I think this is just saying that the leader "may" do this, even though there are many situations whereby he cannot do this (if he is pinned, or - as stated - if he has already directed other units).

If still in doubt, a question to Perry would be helpful. Perhaps I'll have to be the one as I never considered that you could use a 6+1 leader in this way without suffering his DRM!

 

[clubby]

I agree with the above. The last sentence of A10.72 makes it sound like leader direction is optional for ANY ATTACK it makes but that doesn't seem to exclude an attack that the leader is part of. In the case of CC, the leader is part of the attack and adding his FP to that attack.

A player cannot decline use of a non-zero (whether positive or negative) leadership modifier in the same Location or moving stack when performing a MC/TC or Rally attempt or Ambush, Concealment, Search Casualties, or Integrity Check dr/DR unless there is another leader present in the Location or moving stack whose leadership modifier he can substitute. However, a player can always opt to exclude leader direction in any attack it makes [EXC: Armor Leader (D3.45); Leader Creation (18.12); MG Mandatory Fire Direction (9.4)].

 

[Russ Isaia]

If still in doubt, a question to Perry would be helpful. Perhaps I'll have to be the one as I never considered that you could use a 6+1 leader in this way without suffering his DRM!

Barring anyone finding something more definitive, please go ahead. I remain befuddled (but I'm not going to just out of curiosity). The Leader Creation exception mentioned in A10.72 kinda of supports treating the leadership modifier and leader FP participation as inseparable (in its words: "using . . . the new leader's FP/leadership as if he had been there all along").

To put it in Eagle4ty's venacular, "he [may be] one of the guys along for the fun" (and a less than worthless officer to boot), but he is still an officer. If he is in the mob (adding his FP), he's directing it (adding his leadership modifier).

 

[jrv]

Perhaps there is a Q&A on the matter:

A10.72 & A11.141 Can a player decline the use of a (poor) leadership modifier when a leader attacks in combination with a MMC in CC?
A. Yes. [Compil3]

JR

 

[clubby]

Well that does appear to be directly on point.

 

[Russ Isaia]

Perhaps there is a Q&A on the matter:



JR

Why "perhaps?"

 

[Binchois]

Perhaps there is a Q&A on the matter:

JR

Well ain't that a kick in the teeth! Can't say I like the ruling, seems like you should "take the bad with the good." Still, wise to follow the official line.

Now, where was that bad boy when this thread began?